In the next few
weeks, both the Republican and Democratic Parties will finalize their
nominations for the President and Vice-President of the United States. In
November the country will elect a new President and Vice-President. Greater
than the personalities at the head of each ticket will be the agendas each
party presents as its guiding principles. These are incorporated in the party
platforms which will soon be made public. From my perspective, a litany of
critical issues are at stake. Consider the implications of the next election on
the direction of our nation.
First, the
President has the responsibility to nominate Supreme Court Justices. Whichever
party wins the White House will determine what kind of Justices will be
nominated. The critical question is do we as a nation want a court that
legislates from the bench, or one that honestly interprets proposed laws based
upon original intent? Issues related to abortion and the sanctity of human
life, religious liberty and the defense of the free exercise clause, and
government over-reach will be decided by the make-up of the Supreme Court. The
notion that this does not matter is nonsense. The vote in November will affect
the standards of the nation for the next 25-35 years.
Second, the
President has the responsibility to reign in runaway government spending. The
amount of the national debt is staggering. It has doubled over the last 8
years. The people of the United States cannot afford to continue on this
trajectory. The size and scope of our government needs to be curtailed. If
anyone continued to spend borrowed money with no intention of paying it back,
we would consider it theft. Why should we assume that this is acceptable when
it comes to our national government? Moreover, a serious revision of how our
government collects and distributes tax money is way past due.
Third, the issue
of Religious Liberty and the insistence on
the practice of the free exercise clause must be protected. The idea
that a pastor would be forced to remain silent on a moral issue because someone labels a biblical conviction
as "hate-speech," is unacceptable. The notion that a Christian would
be forced to violate his or her conscience is unacceptable. Government
intimidation of churches and threatening to remove tax-exempt status is
unacceptable.
These are three
issues that are critical in my estimation.
No comments:
Post a Comment