Here we go again, as the great Canadian pastime of federal politics takes the front seat on the agenda of the day, casting a shadow on the weather, Olympics and even the NHL. We are called to be good and reasonable citizens in exercising our crucial democratic rights. This is important, as some of us do not even bother to participate, being turned off by the irrelevance of the political process in its entirety. Others, while religiously going to the polls, neglect to scratch even the most perfunctory layers of the marketing veneer put on by major and minor political players alike. Many of us, despite deeming ourselves responsible voting citizens, do not go beyond television ads, preconceived notions and editorial headlines. We go and vote by totally failing to comprehend what we are voting for, hence potentially inflicting unnecessary and pernicious wounds on key democratic institutions and values that we profess to hold dear. I think it is better to stay at home than to vote irresponsibly. Alas, that’s what happens all too often and I am sure this occasion could hardly be any different.
Responsible voting always comes at the tormenting cost of conflicting priorities and tortured logic. Irresponsible voting comes easily as one tends to concentrate on a single set of issues as if pretending that the world around us is based on the singular molecular structure of an amoeba. For example, if you support gay marriage – Liberal is your party; want to see more unionized power – vote NDP; like lower taxes and weak government – welcome into the Conservative camp. Various political parties have exploited this tendency of irresponsible voters time and time again, almost cooking it to perfection.
The pattern of irresponsible voting is so prevalent that it is not even considered a failing or a sin. Even in our churches today, we hear eloquent calls to vote, casting aspersions at the apolitical and disinterested – “Cannot complain if do not vote” type of attitude. Yet, in all aspects of life the example of the Lord Jesus calls us to a heightened sense of responsibility in whatever we do. In prayer, we recall His example in Gethsemane; in giving, we look to the poor widow in the temple; in mercy, we remember the multitudes healed; in wisdom, we recall the famous “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” and so on. But when it comes to voting, it seems we are called to mediocrity since we only talk about a couple of issues, gay marriage being the prevalent topic. Well, throw in a couple of Hail Mary passes of prostitution and polygamy and we are just about done.
I personally find this trend disturbing, as if the government we elect is only responsible for issues of personal morality to the exclusion of all others such as health care, armed forces, crime, poverty and corporate control. It would not be a stretch to say that single issue politics set one up for failure and disillusionment more often than not.
Surely, the issues of gay marriage or assisted suicide are important and should be considered carefully within the context of the teachings of Christ. But make no mistake, the issues that deal with individual morality are the least likely to be affected by governmental decrees. Just remember the time of Prohibition in the United States. Despite the best intentions, Americans did not stop drinking. Instead, they turned to all matters illegal that nurtured just another violent crime wave sweeping across the country and bringing to life many an unsavory character, such as Al Capone and others. If we want to deal with sin in people’s life, let’s talk about evangelization and not governmental decrees. Just remember that Rome still continued on its path of decay even after the legalization of Christianity by Constantine. In fact, this decision to make Christianity the official religion of the state seems, in retrospect, to have done more harm than good to the message of Christ. Christ never wanted to be political when he dealt with sin. Why do we? Moreover, morality without Christ is just as hopeless as immorality.
The issues that government CAN significantly affect, on the other hand, are typically issues of a social and economic nature. And yet these issues are hardly ever touched by many in the church, hence giving a rather skewed view of what we should be about. Sure, we give lip service to the need of being mindful of all issues, and yet by concentrating on gay marriage and a few others, we really short change ourselves and implicitly endorse only political parties that occupy the so-called right wing spectrum of Canadian politics.
Let’s consider, in the U.S., for years now an overwhelming majority of American evangelicals have supported the Republican Party on the basis of essentially two issues, abortion and gay rights. While I am not suggesting that any Christian should support either of these, I do believe, that the votes of our American brothers and sisters have been high-jacked in favor of child poverty, appalling inequality, denial of basic medical services, increased corporate welfare, violent crime, and extremely aggressive foreign policies that threaten to unravel the very fabric of reasonable international discourse. In fact, the singular issue of child poverty in America has given fodder to the following musings coming from the extreme left – “The ‘right’ loves the fetus, but hates the child!” Why do we allow ourselves be mocked? Let’s sit down and think!
Back to Canada however, I just received the voting guide from the Family Room at Calvary that left me dismayed, as it fits just perfectly into the tendency to endorse the Conservative party without laying out all other issues on the table. Hmm…
OK, by now you all think that I am a gay marriage, abortion supporting left wing nut that should be ashamed to call himself a Christian. Nevertheless, please give me a chance to weigh in and explain myself in brief on some key issues of this campaign.
Accountable Government
When it comes to Accountable government, I believe that just about anybody could claim better accountability than the ruling Liberals, hence hardly favoring any particular political party. Also, when considering any governmental corruption in Canada, including the Sponsorship Scandal, please look south of the border, take a deep sigh of relief, and relax!
As far as free vote is concerned, it is surely preferable to have all votes in Parliament to be free. Alas, in real life this is not the case even for the Conservative Party, as Steven Harper has so far promised a free vote on only a few issues that include gay marriage. The claim that Liberals do not support any free vote is false, as they allowed it on the usual suspect of gay marriage. When we vote, we vote for a political party and not for individual members, make no mistake about it. So while free vote is a commendable proposal by Conservatives, real changes are hardly likely.
As far as an elected Senate goes, while it appears to be a sensible proposition it does require further examination. Please remember that the Senate is supposed to provide advisory and vetoing power for bills coming up from the Commons, it serves as an impartial barrier of checks and balances, especially on issues of rights. The elected Senate is likely to be more susceptible to the power of the majority, which could defeat the original intent of such impartiality, which might be better assured by tenure appointments as opposed to increased politization of the Senate. Two chambers? Why?
Health Care
Health Care has been long considered the cornerstone of Canadian society, and yet many a provincial and federal government of the past twenty years has done much to dismantle it. Do not make a mistake in thinking that the solution to the waiting lists is increased privatization. It is not! The countries that occupy top rankings of health delivery in the world all have lower components of private delivery than Canada – enter France and Germany, as examples. The most privatized and chaotic system in the world on the other hand, the United States, places below Canada in the majority of such rankings. Since this is the case, why do we need more privatization when the data shows quite the opposite? Furthermore, I venture to say that devolution of health care to provinces and lack of funding are the main issues that are least likely to be addressed by the Conservative platform. Just remember, the people of the United States spend 50% more per capita on health care services than their counterparts in Canada, while 44 million Americans lack any medical coverage whatsoever. Where is the logic in the privatization push?
Day Care
While choice is important, it is necessary to say that neither Liberal nor NDP proposals take the choice away from parents; all they propose is to devote more of governmental funding to the issue of day care to promote equality and reduce child poverty. Please consider our public school system as an example; the system that exists along side private school system. The day care proposal of Liberals and NDP is very similar to this system. Choice remains, while the most disadvantaged in the society get a chance to be on an even playing field. Just think of a single mother who has to work and provide day care for her child. The Conservatives would give her $100 per month, while the NDP would provide her with a permanent day care spot. What is better? You decide.
Abortion
Well, here we are on this extremely divisive and polarizing subject for many. I personally oppose abortion on the same basis as I would oppose Euthanasia and Capital Punishment – God’s preeminence in the matters of life and death cannot be denied. However, this decision is not easy for me. First of all, it is hard to seriously concentrate on the issue since it has been used very successfully by the right wing in American political football. Presidents, congresses and senates have come and gone, accomplishing much on the conservative agenda, while the abortion issue just remains standing in its perennial shame. Sometimes I have suspicion that key architects of the American right dread to lose it as an issue lest they sacrifice the rest of their imprudent agenda. Could such experience be repeated in Canada? Maybe…
Secondly, one thing needs to be made absolutely certain – there is no doubt in my mind that abortion is a symptom of much larger economic and social problems. The problems that beg for a resolution somewhere in a more progressive set of economic and social incentives, as compared to those offered by tax cutting Conservatives. I am afraid that an outright ban on abortion would only drive the whole sordid trade underground. Oh, why do not we have a political party that can do both – a will to ban abortions and wisdom to provide offsetting incentives? I personally would not mind giving up more of my tax dollars in order to save a life and maintain it outside of poverty and neglect. Wouldn’t you?
Same Sex Marriage
I think I have said enough on the issue already. In addition, I would like to clarify that my personal position is against same sex marriage. However, please remember that the temptation to be involved in homosexuality is no more sinful than the temptation to steal, abuse, wage unjust war, or curse one’s parents.
Even the desperation maneuver to bring the notwithstanding clause into play by our fearless Mr. Martin is so far removed from reality that it can only compete with another far to reach gem of the majority willing to compromise the right of the Church to refuse administration of gay marriages in favor of gay rights. After all, the Church’s prerogative to refuse administration of gay marriage is currently enshrined in law. Does anyone plausibly see even a slightest chance of removal of such protections in some Gay Marriage Bill II? This is not very likely.
Euthanasia
I am completely opposed to this proposal, as human judgment is a flawed judgment that should not, under any circumstances, prevail upon God’s prerogative to give and take life, period. The Conservative party stands head and shoulders above others on this issue.
Child Pornography
I support the position of the Conservative party as to the elimination of defenses against child pornography. The very trade in such information is reprehensible and should be resisted as it promotes child exploitation and abuse.
Age of Consent
While I support the position of raising the bar, I am not sure whether such measures would materially alter actual outcomes when it comes to matters of abuse. I think that sexual abuse arises out of the works of sin that could hardly pay heed to matters of legality.
Prostitution
While I do not support the legalization of prostitution, I do have some reservations in this matter. The reservations are that regardless of our efforts to keep it illegal, the oldest profession in the world has always managed to disappoint its critics. Hence, I do not believe that a continuation of this stance would deliver much needed results, as reasons for propagation of prostitution tend to heavily coincide with other social and economic issues that point to poverty, inequality and other similar matters. This issue is just like crime in general. While tough sentencing guidelines are a legitimate tool in the war on crime, make no mistake; crime is born by lack of economic and social incentives. The United States, for example, has the most expensive incarceration system in the world, that boasts rates of imprisonment that exceed that of Canada by fourfold. And yet, violent crime in the US exceeds Canadian levels by twofold and the use of firearms in commission of such crime bests our incidences by a factor three.
Legalization of Marijuana
Such proposals are very controversial and in all honesty should be discarded just not to tempt the sensitive electorate. On the other hand, this issue prompts me to think of two descriptors – hypocrisy and convenience. The hypocrisy stems from the apparent lack of judgment when it comes to the regulation of addictive and harmless substances – enter tobacco and alcohol. Convenience appears to have fit well with our governments in their dependence on “sin” substance revenue. Maybe our leaders are on to something here?
Polygamy
This is not an issue. Nobody even remotely seems to be interested, other than some left wing crackpot study that shed “light” on positive effects of polygamy. By the way if you do not live in a bubble, you might have heard of Bountiful, BC.
Taxation
Here is my favorite topic. Ever since I came to Canada, I have heard much discussion regarding taxes. Most of the clamor is predictably generated by the right wing of the political spectrum. These folks never seem to have enough. They always bemoan excessive taxation while forgetting to count their blessings. And no wonder, because this opinion is held by the richest Canadians including always profit thirty corporate structures. You see, taxation is essentially an income redistribution mechanism that compels the most fortunate in the society to help the disadvantages. It is like parents paying for part of son’s tuition in college, a nephew giving shelter and care to an old aunt, or a father receiving his prodigal son with open arms.
While seen by many as too socialist, this income redistribution mechanism creates a much more civil society that can truly boast even playing field of opportunities that inevitably leads to better economic and social outcomes. The wealthier folks also have to remember that their hard earned money not only improves the society at large, but also provides for services that affect their own well being – roads, schools, hospitals, extended maternity benefits, law enforcement and many other services.
The right wing tends to disregard all of the above by simply calling for taxation to be reduced at any expense. They do not like budget surpluses, they put out idiotic tax freedom dates, and they demand lowering taxes to the levels of those in the United States. The latter is an interesting point to consider, however…
The level of total tax bill of Canadians relative to their US counterparts is only about 4% (42% to 38% as per OECD reports of 2002) higher in relations to GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Very similar numbers – do not you think? This is, of course, much contrary to statements put out by the right. Moreover, it has to be remembered that this gap is more than covered by the singular issue of health care that tends to be only minimally covered by governmental outlays in the US. In addition, I can mention few other interesting points of “us versus them variety” – Canada provides for 52 weeks of maternal benefits through its EI system (a very “socialist” undertaking to many…), the US federally mandates 6 weeks; median after tax disposable income in Canada is higher by approximately $2,000 per family of four; US child poverty rates exceed those of Canada by 50%. You see the old adage of “you get what you pay for” is still valid…
When it comes specifically to family taxation, surely the Conservative position is slightly more beneficial to single earner families (somewhere on the order of $25 to $50 per month). However, any support for their overall tax position has to include broader thinking. Is the proposed flattening of tax rates going to serve families in the long run, is it going to diminish our social services, are is creating larger inequality gaps? Remember that student whose parents help him to pay for college tuition? Well, he will be paying through the nose below the 49th.
Finally, please remember that necessity to resort to dual incomes for overwhelming number of families is typically not the result of unfair taxation, but rather a symptom of middle class erosion that stems from stagnating real incomes. The stagnation that results from increased deregulation and unfair globalization; strategies long supported by the very Conservative party and its backers.
Just a case in point – as a part of the Conservative program, Mr. Harper offered zero taxes on some capital gains. Who do you think stands to benefit and who do you think stands to lose should this proposal materialize? This is not a trick question.
Now, let’s consider a few other issues conveniently omitted from the platform highlighted on the Calvary web site.
Economy in General
Economic management has always been a tricky issue for many a government. However, instead boring one with unadulterated economic discussion, let’s look at history where we would find that the prosperity that we currently enjoy could be called by its second name – “the miracle of the middle class”. The miracle that became possible due to activist governments that came to power as a result of Great Depression followed by the WWII. The golden years of the middle class started to wilt, however, in the wake of the economic upheaval of the 70s. We wanted change and change we got in the neo-conservative ideology of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Regan, and their brave successors. What followed is a distressing tale of societal polarization; increasing poverty and middle class stagnation, please enter the scene for dual income in an average family.
As opposed to the US and UK, Canada has managed to keep some of the neo-conservative “cures” away from its first aid cabinets, with the exceptions of great experimenters such as Ralph Klein and Mike Harris to name a couple. But do not despair; once in power Mr. Harper is likely to be quick to apply the remedy, taking the legacy of corporate welfare and bleeding of social services to its new and glorious heights. Please be aware of eighty-twenty society. The society where twenty percent are winners and the rest are losers. Please do not believe the quacks such as Tony Robbins and other psychopathic motivators. Can anybody spell “AMWAY”?
As far as the narrow definition of federal government accounts goes, Paul Martin should be given much compliment regardless of any other arguments. He has managed to deliver umpteen amounts of perennial surpluses, and thus should be applauded. Surely, some like to gripe due to presumed over-taxation, but would you rather have surpluses or incredible deficits like those of the United States where brave Bush administration is working extra hard to empty the governmental coffers in favor of the richest 10% of Americans? Why should we lament taxes when the government is in surplus? Should we not be happy as a society that at least someone is saving money for us all?
The case in point is the Canada pension that appears to be in excellent shape as compared to the precarious nature of US social security. Moreover, our competitiveness as a nation does not seem to erode with the rising loonie that is so happy to take us on yet another shopping trip to Bellingham. Economically speaking, why should we be so unhappy about the current government? This beats me.
As far as other economic issues go, an average Canadian we should be leaning to the left and not to the right. Especially when it comes to friends of both Conservative and Liberal parties alike – corporate interests. The corporate interests that profoundly affect our lives without us even knowing it. The corporate interests that as of now pay the least share of overall taxes in fifty years despite record profits and growing competitiveness. The corporate interests that demand multi-billion dollar subsidies for projects that are very much economic, even without such subsidies. The corporate interests who clamor for unfettered freedom in cross border transactions that bleed Canada of its taxes and head office talent. Corporate interests whose sights are set solely on the thirst for profit. Do not give me wrong. I am not against business in general. What I am against is anti-social behavior so frequently betrayed by large business interests however. Do you think Mr. Harper in inclined to alter the situation?
On the flip side of the universe, we have a pathetic $6.50 minimum wage in the richest Canadian province of Alberta; a minimum wage that stays unchanged for many years despite a drastic appreciation in the cost of living. Are they all just students staying at home, as per the musings of the insightful and compassionate Mr. Klein? Or should the entire notion of minimum wage be discarded, plunging us back into the Victorian age as per Mr. Harper’s friends from the fearless Fraser Institute? Or could this be that whole families survive on minimum wage income? These and others just might be the useful questions that one should ask about the economy.
Foreign Affairs
When about 80% of Canadians expressed their strong opposition to the illegal war in Iraq in 2002/2003, Steven Harper strongly supported this effort of his American backers. He went as far as calling us a “second rate lost socialist cause” in the American press, betraying some lack of tact if not patriotism. Now, three years later, the house of cards built by the hawks of Bush administration is falling apart. Not only none of the three main supporting points of their illegal and murderous undertaking failed to materialize (chemical and biological weapons, nuclear threat and links with Al Qaida), but even their very administration of the war has since revealed some essential character traits of the “Christian” president – corporate greed in the way of no bid contracts, lack of basic protection for their own forces on the ground (just cannon fodder), denial of basic human rights to civil population of Iraq, unjust treatment of their opponents including commission of war crimes as deemed under the provisions of Geneva convention. It is really nice to get rid of sadistic Saddam, but the cost of tens and hundreds thousands of lives makes one shudder. Could there have been other solutions to this artificially concocted crises when dealing with former “friends” and “allies” who fall in disrepute in the strategically and incidentally oil rich Middle East?
What about now? While trying to buy crucial votes in the middle of their campaign, the Conservatives have exhibited a strong case of amnesia on the subject. May be we should ask?
In addition, considering the past ties of Steven Harper to the most hawkish and nationalistic flanks of the Republican Party, I fail to see how he would be in the position to exercise our prerogative to political and economic independence. In the matters of economic relations, as an example, Mr. Harper seems to unabashedly extol the virtues of NAFTA and other similar undertakings; undertakings that essentially strip Canada of its independence, making it just a feeder economy to the US juggernaut. Let me assure you, they (Americans) take what they want without any regard to our interests whatsoever. They surely want our oil, but when it comes to soft lumber they quickly lose their principles. When they managed to spot a single “mad” cow in friendly Alberta, they promptly closed the border, just like a true, decent friend would do, especially considering there were a few hundred equally “mad” cows in their own backyard. On the point of softwood lumber, I would have to emphasize that while Mr. Martin has completely dropped the ball on the subject, Mr. Harper is the last person to resolve it in our favor…
Furthermore, despite his questionable track record on Foreign Affairs in the past, Steven Harper has quite openly alluded to his support of the latest version of the old American indulgence in Star Wars. This is the most disturbing, since it is clearly an issue of principle and not economics, as he seems to believe rather light heartedly. Canada has over the past sixty years demonstrated its best as a nation of peacemakers, one of the noblest callings in the context of Christ’s teachings, no less. The acceptance of this American initiative would be contrary to our very fabric as a society. Instead, we will proceed on the path along with the nation that has recently refused to renew scores of nuclear non-proliferation agreements that threaten its imperial status. Are we unwittingly supporting New Rome?
Military
This issue goes hand in hand with Foreign Affairs. Hardly any Canadian would disagree that the primary and most commendable purpose of our military should be peacemaking at its finest. Why do we need super fast and super expensive jets? Why do we need atomic submarines, Tomahawk missiles, and air force carriers?
Instead, we should erase the vestiges of perennial Liberal neglect and equip our military with the best and most efficient tools possible to persevere in our peacemaking undertakings in the best traditions of Lester Pearson. Do you not agree?
Firearms
While our “favourite” Liberal government committed numerous blunders, mostly of PR nature, in its Gun Registry undertaking, it is clear that the basis for the initiative is a very reasonable and useful one. The premise that people kill people while guns have nothing to do with it is definitely false, as it has been proven so by a history of crime and violence, especially to the south of the border, where our brethren tend to implicitly favor a very strong gun lobby that would love to put a gun into every home, no less. Did you know that in the last thirty years, the amount of children who fell victim to firearms in the United States exceeds the number of US dead in Vietnam by three fold – over 180,000 to be exact? Did you know that per capita firearm deaths in Canada are ten times lower than in the US?
I do not think that any of us would favor American-like outcomes in our home. If this is the case, then instead of a constant stream of mockery and criticism adopted by the right, why do not we consider the issue of gun regulation from the stand point of accountability and effectiveness? In addition, we have to also strongly consider the impact of crime by gun smuggling from the US. The latter is hard to control when law enforcement has been perennially hampered by the lack of funds – tax cuts anyone?
Capital Punishment
This is mostly a non-issue outside of the fringes of the Conservative party. However, since some of my bloodthirsty brethren have shown an interest in the topic of late, I would not mind throwing my two pennies in. First of all, capital punishment DOES NOT reduce incidence of violent crime; please enter the state of Texas. Secondly, if you support capital punishment you should also be supporting euthanasia, as both issues are just the opposite side of the same coin – i.e. taking a prerogative of life and death out of the hands of Sovereign God.
First Nations
I understand that there is much lament regarding the failure of long succession of Canadian governments to improve the lot of native people. Lack of accountability and heavy bureaucracy has certainly prevailed to this day in this matter. Clearly, the very delivery of assistance and essential services to our native people needs drastic improvement. In addition, there is a need to continue resolution of long standing grievances through cooperation and good will. The scars left by history are undoubtedly deep and do require nurturing attention. However, my suspicion is that such undertakings would require mounds of positive attitude and, alas, more money. Considering these two factors, certain reactionary rhetoric that has been emanating from the depth of the Conservative ranks seems troubling to say the least. Belligerence and lack of compassion are probably the least desired traits we need to exhibit at this time…
Quebec
I believe that this issue is very similar to the previous one of First Nations. Despite the perennial efforts of concessions and appeasement, the situation has not improved. Of course, the sponsorship scandal has delivered a serious blow to the whole process to boot. However, standing back and reconsidering, I think that only a strong federal government that controls the purse strings can effectively manage the matter that would continually require more managerial efforts, creativity and money of course, do not make a mistake about it. With this in mind, I do not think that any of the contending parties can do worse than the next one, except for one issue – devolution of federalism. You see, Mr. Harper has proposed to recognize so-called fiscal federal-provincial imbalance, hence to increase fiscal transfers from federal to provincial governments. In my opinion, this is a slippery slope as such devolution is more than likely to weaken the federation as opposed to strengthening it. The case in point is health care where instead of equitable and economically sound central management, feds have worsened the situation considerably by gradually decreasing their level of involvement in the matter. Do we want to try it here?
Foreign Aid
It has been long acknowledged by many a principled and progressive researcher including Mr. Sachs of Harvard and Mr. Krugman of Princeton that governmental foreign aid is on the least expensive and most effective tool designed to address basic health issues and combat abject poverty in the least developed countries across the globe. And yet despite years to promises and lip service, Canada shares the cellar with the US in the overall rankings of generosity. Do we really mean to be progressive and share out bounty with the most poor and disadvantaged, or do we prefer to stick to the dubious “no worse than the US” claim. Now, judging the essential supporting elements of all major political parties, Mr. Harper and Mr. Martin appear to the least likely hero figures of the poor.
Environment
The last but surely not least, this issue has risen to the forefront of our political discussion for a very good reason that can hardly be denied; global warming is upon us and what are we going to do about? Despite recognizing the seriousness of the situation, I do confess to be skeptic in the matter of remedy. While supporting the general premise behind the Kyoto accord, I tend to agree with Mr. Harper on two points – the Liberals failed to deliver their promises, even at a minimum, and that the very mechanism of Kyoto is flawed. However, the level of oil and gas lobby support that seems to strongly back Conservative effort in this election leaves me in much discomfort as to whether Mr. Harper is even remotely serious on this issue. Remember it is all about right incentives. I believe we should be providing real tax incentives such as rebates on hybrid vehicle purchases instead of advocating lower taxes on gasoline – a non-solution that boosts the usage of gas-guzzlers. Would Mr. Harper change his mind or should he simply ask his Alberta financiers?
If you have managed to read this far into my letter – thank you very much for your attention!!! I am grateful for you time and effort. While I have tried to cover most of the key issues, some have fallen through the crack of my porous cerebral matter and could be discussed further, if you so wish. Now please go and vote. Vote with an understanding of the wide scope of issues in front of you. Do not be swayed by singular concerns, but step back and consider the larger picture. Everyone individually, and all of us collectively, benefit from such approach. Do it all in love and obedience to our Savior, Lord Jesus Christ.
Responsible voting always comes at the tormenting cost of conflicting priorities and tortured logic. Irresponsible voting comes easily as one tends to concentrate on a single set of issues as if pretending that the world around us is based on the singular molecular structure of an amoeba. For example, if you support gay marriage – Liberal is your party; want to see more unionized power – vote NDP; like lower taxes and weak government – welcome into the Conservative camp. Various political parties have exploited this tendency of irresponsible voters time and time again, almost cooking it to perfection.
The pattern of irresponsible voting is so prevalent that it is not even considered a failing or a sin. Even in our churches today, we hear eloquent calls to vote, casting aspersions at the apolitical and disinterested – “Cannot complain if do not vote” type of attitude. Yet, in all aspects of life the example of the Lord Jesus calls us to a heightened sense of responsibility in whatever we do. In prayer, we recall His example in Gethsemane; in giving, we look to the poor widow in the temple; in mercy, we remember the multitudes healed; in wisdom, we recall the famous “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” and so on. But when it comes to voting, it seems we are called to mediocrity since we only talk about a couple of issues, gay marriage being the prevalent topic. Well, throw in a couple of Hail Mary passes of prostitution and polygamy and we are just about done.
I personally find this trend disturbing, as if the government we elect is only responsible for issues of personal morality to the exclusion of all others such as health care, armed forces, crime, poverty and corporate control. It would not be a stretch to say that single issue politics set one up for failure and disillusionment more often than not.
Surely, the issues of gay marriage or assisted suicide are important and should be considered carefully within the context of the teachings of Christ. But make no mistake, the issues that deal with individual morality are the least likely to be affected by governmental decrees. Just remember the time of Prohibition in the United States. Despite the best intentions, Americans did not stop drinking. Instead, they turned to all matters illegal that nurtured just another violent crime wave sweeping across the country and bringing to life many an unsavory character, such as Al Capone and others. If we want to deal with sin in people’s life, let’s talk about evangelization and not governmental decrees. Just remember that Rome still continued on its path of decay even after the legalization of Christianity by Constantine. In fact, this decision to make Christianity the official religion of the state seems, in retrospect, to have done more harm than good to the message of Christ. Christ never wanted to be political when he dealt with sin. Why do we? Moreover, morality without Christ is just as hopeless as immorality.
The issues that government CAN significantly affect, on the other hand, are typically issues of a social and economic nature. And yet these issues are hardly ever touched by many in the church, hence giving a rather skewed view of what we should be about. Sure, we give lip service to the need of being mindful of all issues, and yet by concentrating on gay marriage and a few others, we really short change ourselves and implicitly endorse only political parties that occupy the so-called right wing spectrum of Canadian politics.
Let’s consider, in the U.S., for years now an overwhelming majority of American evangelicals have supported the Republican Party on the basis of essentially two issues, abortion and gay rights. While I am not suggesting that any Christian should support either of these, I do believe, that the votes of our American brothers and sisters have been high-jacked in favor of child poverty, appalling inequality, denial of basic medical services, increased corporate welfare, violent crime, and extremely aggressive foreign policies that threaten to unravel the very fabric of reasonable international discourse. In fact, the singular issue of child poverty in America has given fodder to the following musings coming from the extreme left – “The ‘right’ loves the fetus, but hates the child!” Why do we allow ourselves be mocked? Let’s sit down and think!
Back to Canada however, I just received the voting guide from the Family Room at Calvary that left me dismayed, as it fits just perfectly into the tendency to endorse the Conservative party without laying out all other issues on the table. Hmm…
OK, by now you all think that I am a gay marriage, abortion supporting left wing nut that should be ashamed to call himself a Christian. Nevertheless, please give me a chance to weigh in and explain myself in brief on some key issues of this campaign.
Accountable Government
When it comes to Accountable government, I believe that just about anybody could claim better accountability than the ruling Liberals, hence hardly favoring any particular political party. Also, when considering any governmental corruption in Canada, including the Sponsorship Scandal, please look south of the border, take a deep sigh of relief, and relax!
As far as free vote is concerned, it is surely preferable to have all votes in Parliament to be free. Alas, in real life this is not the case even for the Conservative Party, as Steven Harper has so far promised a free vote on only a few issues that include gay marriage. The claim that Liberals do not support any free vote is false, as they allowed it on the usual suspect of gay marriage. When we vote, we vote for a political party and not for individual members, make no mistake about it. So while free vote is a commendable proposal by Conservatives, real changes are hardly likely.
As far as an elected Senate goes, while it appears to be a sensible proposition it does require further examination. Please remember that the Senate is supposed to provide advisory and vetoing power for bills coming up from the Commons, it serves as an impartial barrier of checks and balances, especially on issues of rights. The elected Senate is likely to be more susceptible to the power of the majority, which could defeat the original intent of such impartiality, which might be better assured by tenure appointments as opposed to increased politization of the Senate. Two chambers? Why?
Health Care
Health Care has been long considered the cornerstone of Canadian society, and yet many a provincial and federal government of the past twenty years has done much to dismantle it. Do not make a mistake in thinking that the solution to the waiting lists is increased privatization. It is not! The countries that occupy top rankings of health delivery in the world all have lower components of private delivery than Canada – enter France and Germany, as examples. The most privatized and chaotic system in the world on the other hand, the United States, places below Canada in the majority of such rankings. Since this is the case, why do we need more privatization when the data shows quite the opposite? Furthermore, I venture to say that devolution of health care to provinces and lack of funding are the main issues that are least likely to be addressed by the Conservative platform. Just remember, the people of the United States spend 50% more per capita on health care services than their counterparts in Canada, while 44 million Americans lack any medical coverage whatsoever. Where is the logic in the privatization push?
Day Care
While choice is important, it is necessary to say that neither Liberal nor NDP proposals take the choice away from parents; all they propose is to devote more of governmental funding to the issue of day care to promote equality and reduce child poverty. Please consider our public school system as an example; the system that exists along side private school system. The day care proposal of Liberals and NDP is very similar to this system. Choice remains, while the most disadvantaged in the society get a chance to be on an even playing field. Just think of a single mother who has to work and provide day care for her child. The Conservatives would give her $100 per month, while the NDP would provide her with a permanent day care spot. What is better? You decide.
Abortion
Well, here we are on this extremely divisive and polarizing subject for many. I personally oppose abortion on the same basis as I would oppose Euthanasia and Capital Punishment – God’s preeminence in the matters of life and death cannot be denied. However, this decision is not easy for me. First of all, it is hard to seriously concentrate on the issue since it has been used very successfully by the right wing in American political football. Presidents, congresses and senates have come and gone, accomplishing much on the conservative agenda, while the abortion issue just remains standing in its perennial shame. Sometimes I have suspicion that key architects of the American right dread to lose it as an issue lest they sacrifice the rest of their imprudent agenda. Could such experience be repeated in Canada? Maybe…
Secondly, one thing needs to be made absolutely certain – there is no doubt in my mind that abortion is a symptom of much larger economic and social problems. The problems that beg for a resolution somewhere in a more progressive set of economic and social incentives, as compared to those offered by tax cutting Conservatives. I am afraid that an outright ban on abortion would only drive the whole sordid trade underground. Oh, why do not we have a political party that can do both – a will to ban abortions and wisdom to provide offsetting incentives? I personally would not mind giving up more of my tax dollars in order to save a life and maintain it outside of poverty and neglect. Wouldn’t you?
Same Sex Marriage
I think I have said enough on the issue already. In addition, I would like to clarify that my personal position is against same sex marriage. However, please remember that the temptation to be involved in homosexuality is no more sinful than the temptation to steal, abuse, wage unjust war, or curse one’s parents.
Even the desperation maneuver to bring the notwithstanding clause into play by our fearless Mr. Martin is so far removed from reality that it can only compete with another far to reach gem of the majority willing to compromise the right of the Church to refuse administration of gay marriages in favor of gay rights. After all, the Church’s prerogative to refuse administration of gay marriage is currently enshrined in law. Does anyone plausibly see even a slightest chance of removal of such protections in some Gay Marriage Bill II? This is not very likely.
Euthanasia
I am completely opposed to this proposal, as human judgment is a flawed judgment that should not, under any circumstances, prevail upon God’s prerogative to give and take life, period. The Conservative party stands head and shoulders above others on this issue.
Child Pornography
I support the position of the Conservative party as to the elimination of defenses against child pornography. The very trade in such information is reprehensible and should be resisted as it promotes child exploitation and abuse.
Age of Consent
While I support the position of raising the bar, I am not sure whether such measures would materially alter actual outcomes when it comes to matters of abuse. I think that sexual abuse arises out of the works of sin that could hardly pay heed to matters of legality.
Prostitution
While I do not support the legalization of prostitution, I do have some reservations in this matter. The reservations are that regardless of our efforts to keep it illegal, the oldest profession in the world has always managed to disappoint its critics. Hence, I do not believe that a continuation of this stance would deliver much needed results, as reasons for propagation of prostitution tend to heavily coincide with other social and economic issues that point to poverty, inequality and other similar matters. This issue is just like crime in general. While tough sentencing guidelines are a legitimate tool in the war on crime, make no mistake; crime is born by lack of economic and social incentives. The United States, for example, has the most expensive incarceration system in the world, that boasts rates of imprisonment that exceed that of Canada by fourfold. And yet, violent crime in the US exceeds Canadian levels by twofold and the use of firearms in commission of such crime bests our incidences by a factor three.
Legalization of Marijuana
Such proposals are very controversial and in all honesty should be discarded just not to tempt the sensitive electorate. On the other hand, this issue prompts me to think of two descriptors – hypocrisy and convenience. The hypocrisy stems from the apparent lack of judgment when it comes to the regulation of addictive and harmless substances – enter tobacco and alcohol. Convenience appears to have fit well with our governments in their dependence on “sin” substance revenue. Maybe our leaders are on to something here?
Polygamy
This is not an issue. Nobody even remotely seems to be interested, other than some left wing crackpot study that shed “light” on positive effects of polygamy. By the way if you do not live in a bubble, you might have heard of Bountiful, BC.
Taxation
Here is my favorite topic. Ever since I came to Canada, I have heard much discussion regarding taxes. Most of the clamor is predictably generated by the right wing of the political spectrum. These folks never seem to have enough. They always bemoan excessive taxation while forgetting to count their blessings. And no wonder, because this opinion is held by the richest Canadians including always profit thirty corporate structures. You see, taxation is essentially an income redistribution mechanism that compels the most fortunate in the society to help the disadvantages. It is like parents paying for part of son’s tuition in college, a nephew giving shelter and care to an old aunt, or a father receiving his prodigal son with open arms.
While seen by many as too socialist, this income redistribution mechanism creates a much more civil society that can truly boast even playing field of opportunities that inevitably leads to better economic and social outcomes. The wealthier folks also have to remember that their hard earned money not only improves the society at large, but also provides for services that affect their own well being – roads, schools, hospitals, extended maternity benefits, law enforcement and many other services.
The right wing tends to disregard all of the above by simply calling for taxation to be reduced at any expense. They do not like budget surpluses, they put out idiotic tax freedom dates, and they demand lowering taxes to the levels of those in the United States. The latter is an interesting point to consider, however…
The level of total tax bill of Canadians relative to their US counterparts is only about 4% (42% to 38% as per OECD reports of 2002) higher in relations to GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Very similar numbers – do not you think? This is, of course, much contrary to statements put out by the right. Moreover, it has to be remembered that this gap is more than covered by the singular issue of health care that tends to be only minimally covered by governmental outlays in the US. In addition, I can mention few other interesting points of “us versus them variety” – Canada provides for 52 weeks of maternal benefits through its EI system (a very “socialist” undertaking to many…), the US federally mandates 6 weeks; median after tax disposable income in Canada is higher by approximately $2,000 per family of four; US child poverty rates exceed those of Canada by 50%. You see the old adage of “you get what you pay for” is still valid…
When it comes specifically to family taxation, surely the Conservative position is slightly more beneficial to single earner families (somewhere on the order of $25 to $50 per month). However, any support for their overall tax position has to include broader thinking. Is the proposed flattening of tax rates going to serve families in the long run, is it going to diminish our social services, are is creating larger inequality gaps? Remember that student whose parents help him to pay for college tuition? Well, he will be paying through the nose below the 49th.
Finally, please remember that necessity to resort to dual incomes for overwhelming number of families is typically not the result of unfair taxation, but rather a symptom of middle class erosion that stems from stagnating real incomes. The stagnation that results from increased deregulation and unfair globalization; strategies long supported by the very Conservative party and its backers.
Just a case in point – as a part of the Conservative program, Mr. Harper offered zero taxes on some capital gains. Who do you think stands to benefit and who do you think stands to lose should this proposal materialize? This is not a trick question.
Now, let’s consider a few other issues conveniently omitted from the platform highlighted on the Calvary web site.
Economy in General
Economic management has always been a tricky issue for many a government. However, instead boring one with unadulterated economic discussion, let’s look at history where we would find that the prosperity that we currently enjoy could be called by its second name – “the miracle of the middle class”. The miracle that became possible due to activist governments that came to power as a result of Great Depression followed by the WWII. The golden years of the middle class started to wilt, however, in the wake of the economic upheaval of the 70s. We wanted change and change we got in the neo-conservative ideology of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Regan, and their brave successors. What followed is a distressing tale of societal polarization; increasing poverty and middle class stagnation, please enter the scene for dual income in an average family.
As opposed to the US and UK, Canada has managed to keep some of the neo-conservative “cures” away from its first aid cabinets, with the exceptions of great experimenters such as Ralph Klein and Mike Harris to name a couple. But do not despair; once in power Mr. Harper is likely to be quick to apply the remedy, taking the legacy of corporate welfare and bleeding of social services to its new and glorious heights. Please be aware of eighty-twenty society. The society where twenty percent are winners and the rest are losers. Please do not believe the quacks such as Tony Robbins and other psychopathic motivators. Can anybody spell “AMWAY”?
As far as the narrow definition of federal government accounts goes, Paul Martin should be given much compliment regardless of any other arguments. He has managed to deliver umpteen amounts of perennial surpluses, and thus should be applauded. Surely, some like to gripe due to presumed over-taxation, but would you rather have surpluses or incredible deficits like those of the United States where brave Bush administration is working extra hard to empty the governmental coffers in favor of the richest 10% of Americans? Why should we lament taxes when the government is in surplus? Should we not be happy as a society that at least someone is saving money for us all?
The case in point is the Canada pension that appears to be in excellent shape as compared to the precarious nature of US social security. Moreover, our competitiveness as a nation does not seem to erode with the rising loonie that is so happy to take us on yet another shopping trip to Bellingham. Economically speaking, why should we be so unhappy about the current government? This beats me.
As far as other economic issues go, an average Canadian we should be leaning to the left and not to the right. Especially when it comes to friends of both Conservative and Liberal parties alike – corporate interests. The corporate interests that profoundly affect our lives without us even knowing it. The corporate interests that as of now pay the least share of overall taxes in fifty years despite record profits and growing competitiveness. The corporate interests that demand multi-billion dollar subsidies for projects that are very much economic, even without such subsidies. The corporate interests who clamor for unfettered freedom in cross border transactions that bleed Canada of its taxes and head office talent. Corporate interests whose sights are set solely on the thirst for profit. Do not give me wrong. I am not against business in general. What I am against is anti-social behavior so frequently betrayed by large business interests however. Do you think Mr. Harper in inclined to alter the situation?
On the flip side of the universe, we have a pathetic $6.50 minimum wage in the richest Canadian province of Alberta; a minimum wage that stays unchanged for many years despite a drastic appreciation in the cost of living. Are they all just students staying at home, as per the musings of the insightful and compassionate Mr. Klein? Or should the entire notion of minimum wage be discarded, plunging us back into the Victorian age as per Mr. Harper’s friends from the fearless Fraser Institute? Or could this be that whole families survive on minimum wage income? These and others just might be the useful questions that one should ask about the economy.
Foreign Affairs
When about 80% of Canadians expressed their strong opposition to the illegal war in Iraq in 2002/2003, Steven Harper strongly supported this effort of his American backers. He went as far as calling us a “second rate lost socialist cause” in the American press, betraying some lack of tact if not patriotism. Now, three years later, the house of cards built by the hawks of Bush administration is falling apart. Not only none of the three main supporting points of their illegal and murderous undertaking failed to materialize (chemical and biological weapons, nuclear threat and links with Al Qaida), but even their very administration of the war has since revealed some essential character traits of the “Christian” president – corporate greed in the way of no bid contracts, lack of basic protection for their own forces on the ground (just cannon fodder), denial of basic human rights to civil population of Iraq, unjust treatment of their opponents including commission of war crimes as deemed under the provisions of Geneva convention. It is really nice to get rid of sadistic Saddam, but the cost of tens and hundreds thousands of lives makes one shudder. Could there have been other solutions to this artificially concocted crises when dealing with former “friends” and “allies” who fall in disrepute in the strategically and incidentally oil rich Middle East?
What about now? While trying to buy crucial votes in the middle of their campaign, the Conservatives have exhibited a strong case of amnesia on the subject. May be we should ask?
In addition, considering the past ties of Steven Harper to the most hawkish and nationalistic flanks of the Republican Party, I fail to see how he would be in the position to exercise our prerogative to political and economic independence. In the matters of economic relations, as an example, Mr. Harper seems to unabashedly extol the virtues of NAFTA and other similar undertakings; undertakings that essentially strip Canada of its independence, making it just a feeder economy to the US juggernaut. Let me assure you, they (Americans) take what they want without any regard to our interests whatsoever. They surely want our oil, but when it comes to soft lumber they quickly lose their principles. When they managed to spot a single “mad” cow in friendly Alberta, they promptly closed the border, just like a true, decent friend would do, especially considering there were a few hundred equally “mad” cows in their own backyard. On the point of softwood lumber, I would have to emphasize that while Mr. Martin has completely dropped the ball on the subject, Mr. Harper is the last person to resolve it in our favor…
Furthermore, despite his questionable track record on Foreign Affairs in the past, Steven Harper has quite openly alluded to his support of the latest version of the old American indulgence in Star Wars. This is the most disturbing, since it is clearly an issue of principle and not economics, as he seems to believe rather light heartedly. Canada has over the past sixty years demonstrated its best as a nation of peacemakers, one of the noblest callings in the context of Christ’s teachings, no less. The acceptance of this American initiative would be contrary to our very fabric as a society. Instead, we will proceed on the path along with the nation that has recently refused to renew scores of nuclear non-proliferation agreements that threaten its imperial status. Are we unwittingly supporting New Rome?
Military
This issue goes hand in hand with Foreign Affairs. Hardly any Canadian would disagree that the primary and most commendable purpose of our military should be peacemaking at its finest. Why do we need super fast and super expensive jets? Why do we need atomic submarines, Tomahawk missiles, and air force carriers?
Instead, we should erase the vestiges of perennial Liberal neglect and equip our military with the best and most efficient tools possible to persevere in our peacemaking undertakings in the best traditions of Lester Pearson. Do you not agree?
Firearms
While our “favourite” Liberal government committed numerous blunders, mostly of PR nature, in its Gun Registry undertaking, it is clear that the basis for the initiative is a very reasonable and useful one. The premise that people kill people while guns have nothing to do with it is definitely false, as it has been proven so by a history of crime and violence, especially to the south of the border, where our brethren tend to implicitly favor a very strong gun lobby that would love to put a gun into every home, no less. Did you know that in the last thirty years, the amount of children who fell victim to firearms in the United States exceeds the number of US dead in Vietnam by three fold – over 180,000 to be exact? Did you know that per capita firearm deaths in Canada are ten times lower than in the US?
I do not think that any of us would favor American-like outcomes in our home. If this is the case, then instead of a constant stream of mockery and criticism adopted by the right, why do not we consider the issue of gun regulation from the stand point of accountability and effectiveness? In addition, we have to also strongly consider the impact of crime by gun smuggling from the US. The latter is hard to control when law enforcement has been perennially hampered by the lack of funds – tax cuts anyone?
Capital Punishment
This is mostly a non-issue outside of the fringes of the Conservative party. However, since some of my bloodthirsty brethren have shown an interest in the topic of late, I would not mind throwing my two pennies in. First of all, capital punishment DOES NOT reduce incidence of violent crime; please enter the state of Texas. Secondly, if you support capital punishment you should also be supporting euthanasia, as both issues are just the opposite side of the same coin – i.e. taking a prerogative of life and death out of the hands of Sovereign God.
First Nations
I understand that there is much lament regarding the failure of long succession of Canadian governments to improve the lot of native people. Lack of accountability and heavy bureaucracy has certainly prevailed to this day in this matter. Clearly, the very delivery of assistance and essential services to our native people needs drastic improvement. In addition, there is a need to continue resolution of long standing grievances through cooperation and good will. The scars left by history are undoubtedly deep and do require nurturing attention. However, my suspicion is that such undertakings would require mounds of positive attitude and, alas, more money. Considering these two factors, certain reactionary rhetoric that has been emanating from the depth of the Conservative ranks seems troubling to say the least. Belligerence and lack of compassion are probably the least desired traits we need to exhibit at this time…
Quebec
I believe that this issue is very similar to the previous one of First Nations. Despite the perennial efforts of concessions and appeasement, the situation has not improved. Of course, the sponsorship scandal has delivered a serious blow to the whole process to boot. However, standing back and reconsidering, I think that only a strong federal government that controls the purse strings can effectively manage the matter that would continually require more managerial efforts, creativity and money of course, do not make a mistake about it. With this in mind, I do not think that any of the contending parties can do worse than the next one, except for one issue – devolution of federalism. You see, Mr. Harper has proposed to recognize so-called fiscal federal-provincial imbalance, hence to increase fiscal transfers from federal to provincial governments. In my opinion, this is a slippery slope as such devolution is more than likely to weaken the federation as opposed to strengthening it. The case in point is health care where instead of equitable and economically sound central management, feds have worsened the situation considerably by gradually decreasing their level of involvement in the matter. Do we want to try it here?
Foreign Aid
It has been long acknowledged by many a principled and progressive researcher including Mr. Sachs of Harvard and Mr. Krugman of Princeton that governmental foreign aid is on the least expensive and most effective tool designed to address basic health issues and combat abject poverty in the least developed countries across the globe. And yet despite years to promises and lip service, Canada shares the cellar with the US in the overall rankings of generosity. Do we really mean to be progressive and share out bounty with the most poor and disadvantaged, or do we prefer to stick to the dubious “no worse than the US” claim. Now, judging the essential supporting elements of all major political parties, Mr. Harper and Mr. Martin appear to the least likely hero figures of the poor.
Environment
The last but surely not least, this issue has risen to the forefront of our political discussion for a very good reason that can hardly be denied; global warming is upon us and what are we going to do about? Despite recognizing the seriousness of the situation, I do confess to be skeptic in the matter of remedy. While supporting the general premise behind the Kyoto accord, I tend to agree with Mr. Harper on two points – the Liberals failed to deliver their promises, even at a minimum, and that the very mechanism of Kyoto is flawed. However, the level of oil and gas lobby support that seems to strongly back Conservative effort in this election leaves me in much discomfort as to whether Mr. Harper is even remotely serious on this issue. Remember it is all about right incentives. I believe we should be providing real tax incentives such as rebates on hybrid vehicle purchases instead of advocating lower taxes on gasoline – a non-solution that boosts the usage of gas-guzzlers. Would Mr. Harper change his mind or should he simply ask his Alberta financiers?
If you have managed to read this far into my letter – thank you very much for your attention!!! I am grateful for you time and effort. While I have tried to cover most of the key issues, some have fallen through the crack of my porous cerebral matter and could be discussed further, if you so wish. Now please go and vote. Vote with an understanding of the wide scope of issues in front of you. Do not be swayed by singular concerns, but step back and consider the larger picture. Everyone individually, and all of us collectively, benefit from such approach. Do it all in love and obedience to our Savior, Lord Jesus Christ.
1 comment:
Sounds like you're very passionate as far as the church and state issues are concerned. Good for you.
As a believer in Jesus Christ, I've been guided by Paul's insights in Romans 13 "submission to the Authorities". Comments on this chapter - Life Application Study Bible (NIV):
"All Christians agree that we are to live at peace with the stae as long as the state allows us to live by our religious convictions. For hundred of years, however, there have been at least three interpretations of how we are to do this.
(1) Some Christians believe that the state is so corrupt that Christians should have as little to do with it as ossible. Although they should be good citizens as long as they can do so without copromising their believs, they should not work for the government, vote in elections, or serve int he military.
(2) Others believe that God has given the state authority in certain areas and the church authority in others. Christians can be loyal to both and can work for either. They should not, however, confuse the two. In this view, church and state are concerned with two totally different spheres - the spiritual and the physical - and thus complement each other but do not work together.
(3) Still others believe that Christians have a responsibility to make the state better. They can do this politically, by electing Christian or other high-principled leaders. They can also do this morally, by serving as an influence for good society. In this view, church and state ideally work together for the good of all.
None of the views advocate rebelling against or refusing to obey the government's laws or regulations unless those laws clearly require you to violate the moral standards revealed by God. Wherever we find ourselves, we must be responsible citizens, as well as responsible Christians."
My take on this: the Lord is faithful and just - He will deal with the sins of those who are running a corrupt government. Need I say more.
Post a Comment