For those of you unfamiliar with the talk radio format, most shows transition in and out of segments with a brief snippet of song called “bumper music,” which neatly bookends each portion of the discussion and cues the listener in to when they are taking a commercial break or returning back to the show. Radio personalities and their producers usually select songs that set a particular mood or pertain to the subject at hand or that catch the audience’s attention. Bumper music can become an integral part of the show and you might hear anything from a classical concerto to a movie theme, jazz or blues, rock, pop, or country. Conservative taste in music is not as bland as you might think…which brings me to my point.

Being unfamiliar with the art of bumper music, my friend was surprised to find that this conservative host played popular rock-n-roll tunes, considered classics by most standards. These were songs that my friend cherished among his favorites. “How can this be?” he wondered, “Conservatives are not ‘cool’ enough to listen to this kind of music.”

I had to laugh. He and I have been friends for several years; he knows that I am conservative, and he knows that I listen to a variety of music including rock. If I can listen to “cool” music and be up on popular trends, why not any other conservative, including the host of a radio show? Are conservatives so stodgy, so culturally aloof that they cannot possibly be a part of the “in” crowd? Does political ideology determine your place in the pop culture?

Maybe it does. Conservatives are among some of pop culture’s harshest critics. We seem to stand outside the mainstream, examining everything the media establishment produces, ready to assess its moral value. To liberals it appears that we reject more than we embrace. Certainly this is where my friend and liberals in general get the idea that conservatives are not “hip.” And even most conservatives I know view themselves similarly in relation to the pop culture. We accept and participate in many facets of the sensationalized, Hollywood, star-studded, scene; we watch the movies, listen to the music, buy the magazines, more than you might think. But ultimately we see ourselves as separated from it, out of synch with it, and often opposed to it. We do not fully immerse ourselves in it because it is not fully ours. If this makes us “un-cool” then so be it.

But my friend’s remarks reveal a different truth about the left. Its immersion in the popular milieu is more complete. As my friend’s observation implies, only the left is “cool.” Only the left recognizes and appreciates “real” artistry (whatever that is), because only the left is willing to test boundaries, breaks rules, and challenge the establishment. The left creates the pop culture and the left consumes the pop culture, as it was meant to be consumed, whole and complete, while conservatives settle for the cold leftovers. There is a subtle arrogance on the left which asserts this ownership of the pop culture, and denies it to the impossibly dull conservative who remains hopelessly disengaged from the fads and gimmicks of the trendsetters. Liberals are the real driving force behind the pop scene, as they readily admit by mocking the un-coolness of every right-winger.

Not surprisingly conservatives feel the urge to point to this reality from time to time, to show the other side that Hollywood leans left or that certain music sends a politically slanted message or that conservative ideals are underrepresented in the mainstream entertainment media. But in response we hear the usual refrain, a flat out denial of what is palpably present for all to see. We are told: “There is no liberal bias in the entertainment industry. Conservatives are just paranoid. All views are welcome. There are plenty of opportunities for conservatives to participate.” And if you play by their rules, if you check your strongly held convictions at the door, if you can show them that you are “cool” enough, they just might let you into that party.

But I think I’ll pass. I’ll watch the pop culture from a distance where the music is a little softer, the pace is a little slower, and the glare of the spotlight doesn’t wash away what really matters in life, like the company you keep and the values you espouse. Even if conservatives listen to hip music and watch the latest movies we may never be a part of the “in” crowd, but I guess that all depends on what crowd you are in.

On Easter morning church attendance swells to standing room only as the “Christmas-and-Easter” Christians make their usual appearance to fill otherwise empty pews and makeshift folding chairs. The people will come as they do every year because Christmas and Easter are two events that affect the spiritual lives of Christians like no other. They are key events in the life of one man – Jesus of Nazareth. In December Christians come in droves to celebrate a manger filled by the infant Son of God, and now they return to witness his empty tomb.

But what if the tomb had not been empty that first Easter morning? Would there be a Christianity today? Would Christians put their faith in a Christ who never rose?

A documentary which aired March 4 of this year purported to have found the mortal remains of Jesus of Nazareth. This film, which ran on the Discovery Channel, revisited a First Century tomb unearthed more than twenty-five years ago in Jerusalem containing the bones of several individuals including those labeled “Jesus, son of Joseph.” Using wild conjectures and half-truths disguised as a sort of pseudo-archaeology, the filmmakers connected the proverbial dots to “prove” that Jesus never rose from the dead. Supposedly the Resurrection was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Jesus’ followers immediately after his death. And now here are the bones to prove it.

As a component of this “Jesus’ tomb” theory the filmmakers insist that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were husband and wife and had a child together. An obvious parallel to The Da Vinci Code goes without saying. In Dan Brown’s bestselling novel Jesus and Mary Magdalene produce a “royal bloodline” before Jesus was executed. And this we are told was the real purpose of his life’s work. It seems Hollywood and the pop culture never tire of manipulating the historical Jesus, remolding Him to fit whatever cultural trend happens to be en vogue. And Christians who challenge this pop agenda are labeled fanatics or zealots for defending traditional Christian teaching.

Supporters of films such as The Da Vinci Code or the Jesus’ tomb documentary are usually surprised by the strong and often emotional Christian reaction. More than once on such occasions I have been asked, what does it really matter if Jesus was married, or if he had a kid, or if he literally rose from the dead? Isn’t the most important thing that we follow his moral teachings? Why should his personal life affect our faith?

If this were asked about any other founder of a major world religion I would probably agree. But Christianity is not like other world religions.

Christianity is a religion centered on a single person – Jesus of Nazareth. This differs sharply from other world religions. Buddha, for instance, claimed to have discovered the way to spiritual enlightenment; but Jesus insisted that he is the Way. Mohammed presented the Koran as the truth of God’s revelation; Jesus said he is the Truth. Jesus does not merely teach us how to live our lives; Jesus said he is the Life. Other founders of major world religions taught about God, but none of them claimed to be God – Jesus did claim this about himself.

Christianity is Christocentric – centered on Christ – not only centered on his teachings or his moral precepts, but on the person Jesus – who he was and what he did. For the believing Christian the life and actions of Jesus are inextricably tied up with what it means to be a Christian. For Christians Jesus is God, thus the manner of his birth, the way in which he died, whether or not he physically rose from the dead, whether he was married with children, all of these have theological weight and can greatly affect Christian faith. Books and films that depict alternative lifestyles or outcomes to Jesus’ life are not just exploring the life of an extraordinary man who lived two thousand years ago. They are suggesting a distorted perception of the Christian God. Of course Christians are outraged by such attacks.

This Easter (as with every Easter) there are those who wish Jesus was still in the tomb. They loudly proclaim that God is dead and then proceed to try to find the body. In my opinion they can keep their false tombs filled with ancient bones crumbling into dust. I prefer the empty tomb…filled with hope.

The constant barrage from the modern culture can make a parent’s job of filtering content an overwhelming challenge. Amid this confusion it is tempting to sterilize a child’s intake in such a puritanical fashion that, in an overzealous frenzy to eliminate all of the bad messages and twisted morality of Hollywood, parents risk missing valuable opportunities to teach children moral lessons. A child that is never exposed to moral dilemmas or grows up ignorant of the evil that exists in the world will be ill prepared for the conflicts he or she will inevitably face. I would not suggest sitting a four-year-old in front of the next episode of an adult drama or taking your pre-teen to an R-rated movie. But age-appropriate material is available that can both entertain and instruct.

One of the chief parental concerns in film and television is violence. Violence is inherently destructive and negative. Our natural impulse might be to rid our children of this evil entirely. And some parents do shield their children from even the most cartoonish slapstick routine. But violence plays a key role in so many significant events (wars, individual acts of heroism, etc.) that shape our society and are considered morally justified. Knowledge of violence is necessary to understand the world in which we live.

Violence in movies and other story telling media often pits forces of good against evil in a symbolic morality tale. When the good guys always win and evil is inevitably defeated, children learn to make important moral distinctions and see goodness as the most desirable and rewarding choice. I recently witnessed my preschool-aged son experience Star Wars for the first time. The stark contrast between the evil Empire and the forces of good championed by the Rebel Alliance are easy for him to discern even at his young age. He wants to be Luke Skywalker because he wants to be the good guy. And he knows that being the good guy sometimes means taking a stand against forces of evil.

A child who is never exposed to any violence (even violence done in the name of justice) will likely grow up ignorant of the complexities of our turbulent world. Such a child might never realize that good must sometimes violently resist evil. We witness this very phenomenon today among many on the left who reject war (even just war) and do so in large part because they cannot distinguish between good and evil. They live in a world that has been de-mythologized. The mythical battles between armies of light and armies of darkness, between good guys in white hats and bad guys in black hats, have been erased from their psyches, and with it they have lost the will and the ability to fight for any cause.

Hollywood does not think of all this as it churns out its usual fare. If anything Hollywood prefers the tearing down of myths as much as anyone else on the left. Which is why, as I said before, parents must be vigilant. But this does not mean we must settle for butterflies and flowers and big purple puppets singing candy-coated songs. Eventually every child must learn how the world works. Selecting a movie or watching television with your kids can become a dynamic teaching opportunity if you take the time to learn the moral complexities of issues and discuss these topics as a family. Certainly we fight an uphill battle against the amorality of Hollywood, but our power lies in what we choose as consumers and the values we instill in our children so that they may someday make wise moral choices.

Pioneered in the nineteen eighties by a handful of people like Rush Limbaugh, talk radio has now grown to feature a broad range of personalities on multiple networks. Yet amid all this variety the truly successful, nationally syndicated talk shows continue to hold one thing in common – they are all conservative. Liberals have been unable to duplicate this phenomenal success. The mainstream news media may be slanted to the left, but the talk radio scene is unquestionably dominated by the right.

That does not mean that the left has not tried. The most recent attempt has proven to be a costly failure. On March 31, 2004 a new radio network was launched designed to carry liberal political opinion as an answer to the conservative talk radio juggernaut. Tens of millions of dollars were pumped into this new venture called Air America. For more than two years the struggling network limped along without turning a profit. People were just not tuning in and advertisers quickly pulled their endorsements. Liberal hosts like the nationally known comedian-turned-political-pundit Al Franken often worked without pay because the company was so strapped for cash. When Air America finally declared bankruptcy in October of 2006 Franken himself was owed more than $360,000 in back pay, while the company’s entire debt totaled more than $20 million. (Its assets equaled less than $4.5 million.) The network has recently been purchased and is still undergoing restructuring.

So where did Air America go wrong? Why do liberals fare so poorly in the talk radio format?

At least part of the answer lies in the structure of the format itself. To make these opinion shows work, to really give a dynamic energy to the show, the host must offer a solid position on specific issues. That position must be stated clearly, supported with sound reasoning and verifiable evidence, and then the floor can be opened for debate. Callers to the program can either challenge the host’s position or add a nuance to the argument by providing further evidence for the case. In other words, talk radio provides a platform for the open exchange of ideas. It works best when the people involved (the host as well as the listeners who call the show) are willing to challenge and be challenged on the merit of their reasoning. This provides an exercise in logic.

Liberals tend not to do well in this arena because the left bases many of its positions on emotion rather than logic. When challenged by the hard facts, their feelings-based arguments usually evaporate. Or as Howard Dean put it during his unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 2004, “I sometimes say things that get me in trouble. In other words, I lead with my heart and not my head.” Dean is now chairman of the Democratic Party, the party of emotion and empty sentimentality.

Every self-described liberal I have ever known has at some point stated the following: “I personally don’t believe in [fill this space with some hotly debated issue], but far be it from me to tell someone else what to do.” And the ever-popular, “I can’t really say why I believe what I do; it just feels right.” When confronted with an opposing view or challenged to defend their position they inevitably fall back on, “Why don’t we just agree to disagree?”

This avoidance of honest debate is typical on the left, where noisy protest rallies or pies in the face of conservative lecturers substitute for “free speech.” Meanwhile conservatives are often called uncaring and coldhearted because we refuse to allow our emotions to highjack our political ideology. Talk radio remains a staunchly conservative medium because conservatives care most about sharing ideas rather than sharing an “I feel your pain” moment.

Now passion for a cause certainly has its place. Passion and gut emotion can serve to energize the populace, drive legislators into action, or highlight the importance of an historical debate. I feel very passionately about many issues, and that often serves as a motivation for me to write. But ultimately the “debate” must comprise an exchange of ideas, not a clash of emotions. A passionate believer of a particular cause might offer a heartfelt defense, but passion must be tempered by sound logic; and our system of laws must be based on logic not the emotion of the moment.

Originally published in The Capitol News, February 28, 2007

Have you noticed there have been a lot of ads lately for fish dinners? We have all received coupons in the mail and seen the commercials on television featuring fresh lobster, shrimp, and all-you-can-eat crab buffets – all the finest seafood delicacies for this special time of the year. So eat up, pig out, treat yourself to the best…or at least that seems to be the prevailing sentiment. Lent has arrived.

Lent consists of the roughly forty days on the Christian calendar preceding the celebration of Easter. It is a time of fasting, prayer, and almsgiving. Lent is a reflection of, and is prefigured by, the forty days of rain endured by Noah in his ark, the forty years during which Moses led the Jewish people through the desert, and most especially the forty days of fasting and prayer spent by Jesus in solitude before he began his public ministry. Lent concludes with Holy Week which commemorates the suffering and death of Jesus and his burial in the tomb. Easter then is the calm after the storm, the land flowing with milk and honey after a long and arduous journey, and above all it is the joy of the Resurrection after the pain of the Crucifixion.

The predominant theme of Lent is sacrifice, a giving up of earthly comforts and pleasures to mimic the trials that our religious forebears underwent, and to conform more closely our lives to that of Christ – the ultimate sacrificial victim. All of this should make it a little more difficult for Christians to swallow that second (or third) helping of shrimp scampi and lobster tail next Friday night.

But my point here is not entirely religious in nature. The Christian concept of sacrifice as desirable and even beneficial in our lives has far reaching implications even beyond a particular theology or faith tradition. An embrace of sacrifice speaks to the reality of our human condition. To sacrifice on behalf of others is the surest sign of love for fellow man. Strong religious faith, drawing from examples in scripture and religious disciplines, certainly helps to motivate the believer to give of oneself. This positive view of sacrifice is perhaps most fully developed in Christian theology, but it is not limited to Christianity alone. Sacrifice is important to even the nonbeliever.

Soldiers sacrifice their lives for our freedom and prosperity. Parents sacrifice time and money to raise their children. Volunteers in many diverse fields give selflessly so that others might have whatever is lacking in their lives. Any gesture of kindness we do for a stranger that requires effort on our part without seeking any compensation in return is a kind of sacrifice. This Christian concept, expressed in phrases like “love thy neighbor,” and “give one’s life for a friend,” are universal in their application. Christian sacrifice, indeed Christianity itself, is meant to be universal.

But it seems that sacrifice has lost its appeal in modern times. As every generation has made sacrifices on behalf of future generations there has arisen the notion that we must remove this burden from our children. “I will do without certain comforts so that my kids will not have to.” With each successive generation we further shield our children from the discomfort of self-sacrifice. Very soon we forget that sacrifice is a powerful tool in building a sense of responsibility, moral character, and love. By giving our children a life filled with comfort and ease and fulfillment of every desire, we fail to instill a proper appreciation for the truly good things they have. Sacrifice becomes an experience to avoid, a suffering without purpose. But sacrifice, properly directed and motivated by love, is essential to building a strong and nurturing community. Sacrifice does have a purpose.

Many non-Christians (and even quite a few Christians) might argue that sacrifice certainly contributes to a more compassionate society and fosters love of neighbor, but why does God care if I eat fish or steak on a particular day, or if I fast at certain times of the year? This certainly seems to be sacrifice without purpose. It is a pointless religious practice.

Perhaps the key to answering this charge is the word “practice.” The virtue of sacrifice can only be attained if we put it into practice. To give up something so small and insignificant such as meat on Friday or the quantity of food we consume does not benefit anyone directly. But it is an easy way for each of us to disciple ourselves to make larger sacrifices down the road. The point is not what we give up, but that a life of sacrifice is willingly embraced and actively incorporated into our very being.

In a nation that is so blessed with abundance and where poverty (I mean destitute poverty) is so rare, the need to make great sacrifice for those around us is not as tangible as it might be. In other places throughout the world human tragedy is a way of life, and in those places people must truly come to terms with sacrifice and search for its meaning every day. We would all do well to explore the depth of sacrifice in our own lives even if it means a little less on the plate this Lent.

On February 12 we celebrate the birth of our sixteenth President. Most Americans today regard Abraham Lincoln as one of (if not the) greatest President in our nation’s history. But great men like Lincoln are often misunderstood and even rejected by their contemporaries.

In the mid-1800s our nation was polarized over the issue of slavery. Abe Lincoln’s election to the Presidency did not heal these wounds or unite political factions, but instead triggered the South’s secession which eventually precipitated the Civil War. During his watch many thousands of American soldiers died in some of the bloodiest battles this nation has ever seen as families and communities took sides against one another, brother against brother - neighbor against neighbor. Even after the war, fierce divisions remained in a country torn and tattered from years of conflict.

We call Lincoln a great leader, yet whole states left the Union rather than be led where they did not wish to go. But Lincoln did not waver. Facing overwhelming odds, and even paying with his life at the hands of an assassin, Abraham Lincoln stood firm on principles not shared by a significant percentage of the population. With the passage of more than a century, we now admire and revere the man who, in his own time, caused violent division when elected to the highest office in the land. In his day he was a controversial figure; today he is a hero for the ages.

The way history remembers a President cannot be gauged in his own time. When our nation is at war, a war so divisive that people are torn over issues of freedom and justice and the power of a President to lead with strength through such a struggle, how can we be certain what outcome awaits.

The questions before Lincoln are not so far removed from those before us today. As did Lincoln, we must ask ourselves whether it is our country’s obligation to spread liberty where once liberty had no roots; whether the God-given rights proclaimed by our Constitution apply to all peoples or only a chosen few; and whether a denial of those rights anywhere is a challenge to those rights everywhere. Abraham Lincoln knew that freedom and democratic ideals cross boundaries of race and the color of our skin. We must decide whether these same ideals we hold so dear cross the boundaries of nations to reach a people of another culture an ocean away.

This becomes the work of generations. The Civil War did not fix all of the problems that slavery had created. It brought the Union back together and ended slavery as an institution. But throughout the South’s Reconstruction, followed by years of segregation, and eventually the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, racial tensions continued. Real freedom for all Americans took more than one man’s lifetime. Lincoln did not succeed in solving the issues of racism and oppression, but he did have the strength and courage to stand on the moral high ground and point us on the right course. And he did so in the face of criticism and the threat of war.

Our present endeavors cannot be finally judged in our own time. That will be determined by future generations. But when the history of our present is written in stone or commemorated in solemn ceremony, those Americans not yet born will know whether we stood with men like Lincoln who sided with freedom in the face of tyranny, or retreated from the task laid out before us allowing evil to flourish in our midst.

President Bush announced on January 10, in a primetime television address, that troop levels in Iraq will be increased by more than twenty thousand. This increase in our military commitment there was met with disapproval from those on the left who feel we should instead cut our losses and leave Iraq as soon as possible. These critics of the war fail to appreciate the importance of our success in that region and have never understood the importance of Iraq in our global mission in the so-called “War on Terror.”

In Part I of this series I explained, as the President pointed out in his speech, that security in Iraq is now our top priority. Those favoring withdraw argue that our main objective had always been to topple Saddam Hussein and search for weapons of mass destruction. With Saddam now dead and the WMD missing and assumed destroyed, these war opponents now suggest we make a hasty retreat and claim that we did what we came to do, even absent any real semblance of stability. They wish to make Iraq another Vietnam, where we “won the war but lost the peace.”

But peace and security must be our long-term objective in Iraq. Toppling a single dictator and clearing one nation of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons does not neutralize the entire threat posed by the radical elements throughout the Middle East. Iraq is only one front in a much larger war, and that is a point that is seldom given play in the mainstream media even though President Bush clearly reiterates it, as he did again in January.

“…victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world - a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them - and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.”

Leaving Iraq now will not achieve this broader objective. Success in Iraq is important not only in and of itself, but more importantly because it sends a signal to the rest of the Middle East and to the world that freedom is on the march. We cannot cut ourselves loose from Iraq and risk a failure that is larger than any one nation. “The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.”

Iraq is only one battle in a much larger war. Even if we withdrew all forces immediately from Iraq this larger war would continue, on other fronts throughout the Middle East and throughout the world. The obsessive focus by the media and many Democrats on the Iraqi theatre obscures that fact that the real war (of which Iraq is only a part) is not just about military engagements and troop deployments, as important as things are. “The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.” We cannot separate Iraq from this larger global struggle, the struggle of freedom against tyranny.

To win the larger war we must certainly redouble our efforts in the battle for Iraq. We must send more troops; we must fight more effectively. But beyond that, beyond the day-to-day news coverage of victories and lives, won and lost, we must not forget that “… America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.”

Originally published in The Capitol News, February 7, 2007

President Bush’s January 10 address to the nation lacked linguistic pizzazz, but made up for it in content and straightforward, matter-of-fact simplicity of message. How much clearer can it be stated? “Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.” This was not the time for a speech filled with lofty phrases and sweeping rhetoric. The President’s main objective was to explain what changes would be made to our Iraq strategy, and he did so effectively, without fanfare.

As we now watch the implementation of his stated goals, it is important to realize that these strategic adjustments do not represent any real change in our overall policy. It is in fact a bolstering, not an alteration, of what the President has envisioned for the Middle East all along. If the speech had a subtle and understated style it was only because its purpose was to present an unwavering determination to finish our already established objectives. In other words, it was not a flowery exposition on the brotherhood of mankind and our duty to posterity; rather it was a nose-to-the-grindstone, pull-up-your-shirtsleeves appeal to the nation.

Such bland speeches, as necessary as they are, are also soon forgotten. So I would like to revisit this January address to make the most of what it has to offer. In it President Bush tackled the problem of the ongoing violence in Iraq and the call from some that the U. S. should leave sooner rather than later.

In answer to the “pullout now”/Cindy Sheehan Democrats, Bush points out that “to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal.”

And of course he is right. And the Democrats, deep down inside, know that he is right. Which is why, now that the Dems hold the Congressional purse strings, they will continue to fund our operations in Iraq even while they voice opposition. Calling for redeployment (codeword for “withdraw”) might sound good to liberal constituents back home, but in the long run they all know, as well as the President, that such a move would cause more violence and death not less, for our troops as well as the Iraqi people. Withdraw is not a solution; it is a deepening of the problem.

We will therefore stay in Iraq, and we will win the peace. That has been our policy and it remains so. The addition of more than twenty thousand troops will only increase our chance of success. With that in mind Bush also called for a lessoning of restrictions on our troops so that they can operate more freely on the ground; and imbedding our troops within Iraqi units; and a ramping up of Iraqi military and police training. What we have here is the formation of a real plan for success (something Democrats have yet to put forward).

The President understands that “[t]he most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security.” And “security” in that volatile region does not come about by finding the quickest exit strategy, abandoning a fledgling democracy, and leaving the door open for the next tyrant or radical regime. Peace and security in Iraq will require much work yet before us. As President Bush grimly warned us “The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve.” And the enemy will not rest. “[T]hey will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue - and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties.”

The January 10 speech reminds us that nothing in Iraq has changed except a strengthening of American resolve in the face of an evil threat. It was a necessary reminder to us all that we have only begun our task, a task that extends beyond our own boarders and even beyond the boarders of Iraq itself. We face a broader struggle still, according to the President, a struggle I will discuss in Part II of this series.

Originally published in the January 31, 2007 issue of The Capitol News

Who is Margaret Sanger, you ask?

She is the founder of the American Birth Control League, latter renamed Planned Parenthood, which is the largest provider of abortions in the United States, and a leader in the advancement of abortion rights worldwide. The group makes no apologies for its support of abortion on demand. However they do not broadly publicize their historic connections to Sanger and her ideology...and with good reason when one considers her less than admirable motives.

Margaret Sanger was active in the reproductive rights movement in America around the same time the Nazis came to power in Germany with their dreams of building a master race by exterminating the Jews and other “undesirables.” While Sanger rejected the anti-Semitic nature of Nazism she did embrace her own version of eugenics, including the sterilization of those she considered unfit to reproduce and preventing the births of those she saw as a burden on society. She believed in building a superior human race through segregation and controlled breeding.

According to an article written by Sanger entitled "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda," published in the October 1921 issue of the journal, Birth Control Review, “The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.” Sanger envisioned birth control as her own “final solution” for the ills of society. "Eugenics is…the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”

She spread this propaganda in public speaking engagements across the country including a 1926 speech at a New Jersey branch of the Ku Klux Klan. And in 1939 her organization began what was called The Negro Project which promoted her style of family planning among blacks in the South. She recruited black ministers from the area whom she hoped would more effectively garner support among locals. In a letter to a fellow activist concerning this program Sanger wrote, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Planned Parenthood attempts to whitewash Margaret Sanger’s statements by claiming she was influenced by the culture of her time and that we must view her work within that context. But when one reads statements like, “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race,” as she wrote in a 1922 work entitled Woman, Morality, and Birth Control, or “Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need...We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock,” as she wrote in the April 1933 issue of Birth Control Review, it is difficult to see past the obvious implications. Margaret Sanger founded her organization with the idea of ridding the world of the poor, the physically impaired, the uneducated lower class, and all those she deemed unworthy to breed.

Planned Parenthood is understandably ashamed of their late founder’s despicable agenda. But is their present mission any less despicable? Consider the fact that 78% of Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics are located in minority communities. And while blacks make up only 13% of the United States’ population, they compose almost 36% of all abortions. Sure the rhetoric has changed, but the results are the same. Minorities are suffering worst from the scourge of abortion.

Consider also this statement from Planned Parenthood’s website: “Public funds should be made available to subsidize the cost of abortion [and]…sterilization services for those who choose the procedure[s] but cannot afford [them].” In other words, they want us to pay for sterilizing and aborting the poor of our nation. Margaret Sanger would no doubt applaud this policy statement, as she would also be pleased to know that Planned Parenthood receives its own federal subsidies with nearly one third of its funding coming from government grants and contracts.

Margaret Sanger’s goal of a national policy of eugenics may not be written into law, but the reality of legalized abortion, its inherent cheapening of human life, and the taxpayer funding of organizations like Planned Parenthood give to her the next closest thing. Thanks to Roe v. Wade and the culture of death she inspired an unborn child can be written off as an undesired nuisance and a burden on society.

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Marriage in our Western culture has until recently been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Even within cultures that practice polygamy, a man can marry multiple women, but the women do not marry one another, nor do men marry men. Marriage has always had a male-to-female connotation. Thus the ongoing debate over “gay marriage” involves a real re-definition of marriage that strikes at the very core meaning of the word.

In our culture we have set the standard for marriage as “one man, one woman” due in large part to our Judeo-Christian heritage. There are many moral and religious reasons in favor of this traditional view. But those who support gay marriage reject many of these arguments as being archaic, overtly religious, and unfair to gays and lesbians who simply want to enjoy the same rights as every heterosexual. I agree that no one should be denied any basic human right based on their sexual orientation. Two consenting adults have every right to enter into a relationship of their choosing regardless of anyone else’s religious objection. However, marriage extends beyond the individual’s right to a personal relationship. Marriage implies an endorsement of that relationship by society. As such, marriage is also a public institution not merely a private affair.

But even so, why should marriage be limited to male-female relationships? What interest should the government have in restricting who marries? Why should society discriminate in this way? To fully answer the charges of the left against a traditional view of marriage we need to fully appreciate why we have an institution of marriage in the first place, why it has always been male-female, and why our government has no authority to change it.

Marriage has two primary purposes: (1) the mutual love and support of the spouses, and (2) to produce children and nurture them into valuable members of society. Granted, not everyone who gets married has children. But then again, not everyone who gets married is really in love either, as our high divorce rate demonstrates. Certainly the dual purpose of marriage is not a guarantee that every couple will live out these purposes in exactly the same way. But historically these two objectives (love and children) have been the dual components of marriage.

The gay marriage debate focuses attention on the first of these two purposes to the exclusion of the second. The argument in favor of gay marriage is framed around the “love” of the two individuals, insisting that society has an obligation to honor their right to love whomever they please. This line of reasoning seems compelling if procreation is left out of the picture. For obvious biological reasons, a same-sex couple cannot reproduce. But if goal of marriage is narrowed to mutual love and support and procreation is discarded, then homosexuals have no impediment to marriage.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the government’s primary interest in regulating marriage lies primarily in its procreative aspect and not exclusively in the emotional attachment of the couple. The government is interested in procreation because it produces the next generation of citizens. And common sense tells us that a male-female relationship stands a better chance of producing children than any other combination. The government regulates marriage because a state has a vested interest in the growth and stability of its population. The government cares about the love and support of the spouses only as it pertains to building a solid home in which stable, well adjusted, and productive citizens are most likely to be nurtured.

When a couple applies for a marriage license questions are asked about residency status, possible family relationship between the prospective spouses, in some places blood tests are administered, and all of these things fulfill the government’s responsibility to maintain a healthy, growing population. So the very nature of our marriage laws and the licensing process demonstrate that procreation is a key component in a legal definition of marriage. But if we redefine marriage so that love becomes the only necessary factor, then the state will be in the messy business of regulating an emotion. The state will have the power to issue a license for love and personal sexual fulfillment. No government should have this authority.

To borrow a slogan from the gay rights movement, “Keep the government out of the bedroom.” We do this by ensuring the traditional definition of marriage remains intact, not because we want to deny homosexuals their right to love, but precisely because love is too sacred to turn over to government regulation. No one’s emotions should fall under governmental jurisdiction.

Originally published in The Capitol News, October 24, 2006

I have no problem calling myself “conservative” even though that particular word draws ridicule from many corners. Conservatives are caricatured and lampooned on television, in the movies, and throughout the pop culture for being narrow-minded, insensitive, and out of touch. Frankly the conservative view is usually misunderstood by its critics and all too often misrepresented by its supporters.

I am also Christian. I certainly have no problem describing myself as such even though that title often garners even harsher criticism than conservatism in our increasingly secular culture. Some believe that religion (Christian or otherwise) is the primary source of evil and oppression in the world. They point to Christianity’s sometimes violent past or the Islamic threat of today and see nothing but the worst in people of faith. Never mind that they are excluding the work of people like Mother Theresa or Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Christianity can be a powerful force for good when it is not distorted or misused. Sadly Christianity is also misunderstood by its critics and all too often misrepresented by its supporters.

So I am a “Conservative Christian,” which means I am doubly hated by the world.

I do not however identify myself as part of the “religious right,” which is so feared by liberals and even some conservatives. I disagree vehemently with those Christians who take it upon themselves to condemn their opponents to the fires of hell or cite biblical passages as proof that God supports certain legislation. I do not mean to suggest that religion should not play a role in politics. My faith plays a vital role in shaping my views. But when we go to vote we should not ask ourselves “What would Jesus do?” Jesus did not endorse political philosophies or run for public office. He gave to Caesar what was Caesar’s and told us to do the same.

The religious right is sometimes accused of trying to establish a theocracy here in the United States along the same lines as the Taliban in Afghanistan. This accusation is ludicrous in my estimation, but it does reflect a real fear among those on the left, especially secular atheists and agnostics, that Christians want to create laws based on theological principles rather than common principles that can be shared in a pluralistic society. And they make a valid point. Our nation may have grown from Christian roots, and has been shaped by faith-filled Christians throughout its history, but one does not have to be Christian to live here nor should anyone be made to feel that way.

So how do we take our Christian beliefs and put them to work in the public arena without infringing on the rights of others who do not believe? I admit it is a delicate balance. To start with it should be noted that holding a sign reading “All gays go to hell!” does not win any points in a policy debate or convert anyone to your way of thinking. Besides that it is downright mean, and it does not reflect the beliefs of most Christians (including me). Also we cannot pass laws that state, “Thou shalt not (fill in the blank) because God said so or else you will suffer the torments of everlasting fire.” Our laws cannot be based on theology.

But laws are based on morality. Even an atheist must admit that we disallow certain actions in our society because we have reached a moral consensus that the act is evil. We all agree that murder should be illegal because it is morally repugnant to everyone including those who do not believe in the Ten Commandments and “Thou shalt not kill.” Theft and rape and drunken driving can all be argued against from a Christian perspective but these are equally wrong in the eyes of an agnostic based on sound logic.

This does not mean that Christianity is unnecessary, that we can come to the same moral conclusions without God. To the contrary, without God we often miss the mark. But what it does mean is that God’s “rules” make logical sense. Faith and reason go hand-in-hand. I do not have to argue a conservative viewpoint relying solely on “God said so” as my defense. If I take the time to examine an issue I can show the non-believer that what God says makes sense in his or her life too. If God gives us commandments so that we can attain goodness, then we should point out the goodness in His laws as a goodness that is real and tangible and a benefit to all of society, Christian and non-Christian alike.

There are atheists who oppose abortion, support the traditional definition of marriage, and champion a whole host of “Christian” ideals. They do so because God’s way makes sense to them even though they do not know it as God’s way. On an individual level, in our day to day lives, I see no problem with trying to convince these souls to discover the whole Truth in Christian Revelation. But as a matter of public policy and in the interest of productive political discourse, Christians would do well to explore the depths of human reason as a means of presenting the Wisdom of God.

Originally published in The Capitol News, December 16, 2006