Skip to main content

Are You Taking Your Faith With You?



Yesterday someone asked me if I would be taking my “religious beliefs” to Columbia with me if I am elected (the tone of his question was sarcastic). My response was, “You’re darn right I will.”

I went on to explain that I can no more separate myself from my religious beliefs than I can from my skin color or height. My faith in Jesus Christ is not my grandparents’ religion or a collection of stories. It is what forms my worldview and governs my decisions; it is the needle on my moral compass and the most important determining factor in my life.

Some may scoff at this, or invoke the separation of church and state, but I would point out a few things. First, having convictions is a good thing. People are sick of politicians who move whichever way the winds blow. I will never do that because my beliefs won’t change. I’m not running to build a political career and do what is necessary to stay in office. I’m running to make a difference and do what I think is right.

Second, my convictions make me a better person. My theology says to love my neighbor as myself, to pray for my enemies, to do good to those who curse me—why would anyone want me to leave that home when I go to Columbia?

Finally, I would point out that the “leave your faith at home” mindset only applies to Christians. Atheism is a belief system, but secularists never say, “I hope you leave your atheism at home.” In fact, I would submit that atheism in the workplace and in government is what has led to the moral decline in this country. If anything, we need more people to take their Christian convictions into government.


I don’t want to be a congressman who happens to be a Christian. I want to be a Christian who happens to be a congressman. This is who I am. I would love your vote, but I won’t compromise to get it.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The “Christians Hate Gays” Myth

During these Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) hearings before the Supreme Court I keep hearing how much Christians hate gay people. This was news to me since I am a Christian and I don’t hate gay people. I also go to church with over 1000 other Christians, and if any of them hate gay people, they sure haven’t told me. Before moving to South Carolina I worked at or attended several churches in Texas; prior to that I spent a decade going to church in Florida. Guess what? No one hated gay people. In fact, I don’t know any Christians who hate anybody. The very uniform of a believer is his love, and if a person does not show consistent love, then he is not actually a believer. Are there non-believers who hate gay people and claim to be Christian? Of course. But that doesn’t represent Jesus or His church. Equating  hateful sign-wavers with Christianity is like equating a kindergarten baseball team to the New York Yankees. They may claim to be playing the same

To Save a Life

(Like my blog about the peace symbol, this blog was written as a default response to all the parents, students, and other people who are asking my opinion of To Save a Life.) By now you have probably heard of the movie To Save a Life, which opened nation-wide in theaters on January 22nd. The movie deals with so many issues that teens face today, like suicide, cutting, drinking, drugs, premarital sex, teen pregnancy, and abortion. At first glance this movie looks like an awesome resource that we should recommend for our teens, parents, youth pastors, and youth workers. But a closer look at the movie reveals a few disturbing things. For starters, according to pluggedin.com, there are 2 uses of the “A” word, 5 uses of hell (used as a curse word), and once the “D” word is used. There are other crude terms used to describe a girl, and crude terms for referring to sexual activity. There is also a bedroom scene that shows a girl removing a boy’s shirt, then afterwards the girl putting he

Famous Frauds in Homosexual Science Part 2: Twin Studies

A second piece of shoddy science has been heralded as proving people are born gay. This time, instead of cadavers, living twins were studied. This study compared male identical twins to male fraternal twins; in each set of twins, at least one man was homosexual. 22% of the fraternal twins showed both brothers to be gay, compared to 52% of the identical twins. Since identical twins are closer genetically than fraternal twins, this study claimed that genetics play in to homosexuality, or that people are born gay. But an obvious question that arose from this study is, why did 48% of the identical twins only have one gay brother? If they are so close genetically, then 100% of the identical twins should have two gay brothers. This study does more harm than good to the argument from genetics. There are other factors to be considered. One is that the men doing the study (Richard Pillard and Michael Bailey) could have intentionally picked fraternal twins that the