As much as the establishment GOP would like for the “social”
(
I prefer “moral”)
issues to go away, liberals simply won’t allow it. Contrary to popular belief,
lately it has been liberals on offense when it comes to making the moral issues
into campaign issues. How ironic is it that, when jobs and the economy are
overwhelmingly the leading issue in a
political campaign, liberals insist on debating the moral issues. Contrary to
GOP establishment beliefs, this is not a bad thing.
Conservative Christians are on the side of the truth when it
comes to abortion, same-sex marriage, evolution, and so on. We simply need
candidates who truly believe our positions and can intelligently articulate
them. When debating the moral issues, too many GOP candidates are simply
pandering. Other conservatives have their hearts in the right place, but they are
unable to communicate effectively their positions when put on the spot by
liberals—whether their opponent or the media.
If your heart and your mind are not in this debate, serious
mistakes can (and will) be made (ask Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock). I can’t
change anyone’s heart, but I can provide some mental ammunition when it comes
to debating the moral issues.
Thus, as a public service to conservative Christians
everywhere, but especially to those running for public office, this column is a
primer for how to answer those “gotcha” questions that any candidate opposing a
liberal will inevitably have to answer.
First of all, on the question of rape and abortion, as Mike
Adams of Townhall.com
points
out, one should use significant caution when discussing such matters. Next,
I would advise an approach taken by Jesus Christ Himself. Often, when doubters were
attempting to trap Jesus with their “gotcha” questions, to reveal their
ignorance and hypocrisy, Christ responded with a question of His own.
There are several such questions with which to respond when
asked why one does not support abortion in the case of a pregnancy resulting
from rape. For example, almost certainly
the person urging a rape exception does not really believe in the
exception. As Adams
also points out, “[i]n order for there to be an exception to a rule banning
abortions, there has to be a rule banning abortions. That much is obvious. It
is also obvious that pro-choicers do not merely want abortion to be available
in cases of rape. They want it available in all cases.”
Thus, one should ask them: If I agree to the rape exception,
would you then agree to ban abortion in all other cases? Also point out that
there are literally thousands of people alive today who were born as a result
of a rape. (A good idea would be to name a specific example.) Ask if it would
be acceptable to kill that person because of the circumstances of his or her
conception.
Another good question,
as I pointed out months ago, would be: Instead of killing the innocent child in the womb,
why not execute the rapist? A follow up would be: Do liberals (or others) who
support abortion in cases of rape also support the execution of rapists? Perhaps
the best question would be, why compound one evil deed with another? Rape is a
horrific evil, but so is the taking of an innocent life.
On the issue of marriage, conservatives are often asked if
they support same-sex marriage (or more sinisterly, a loaded question such as
“Do you support marriage equality?”). The conservative response should be “No,”
immediately followed by, “How would you
discriminate and define marriage?”
Most liberals want to define marriage as a union between any
two consenting adults. Of course, this ignores polygamy, polyandry, and other
variations of multiples marrying. The point is (
as I pointed out months ago), any definition of marriage is “discriminatory;” it just
comes down to whose definition you want to use.
It should also be pointed out that, once same-sex marriage
has legal recognition and protection, businesses, schools, churches, and so on
could then face legal consequences if they “discriminate” against same-sex
marriage. Same-sex marriage supporters should have to answer whether they would
support such legal actions.
Then there is the dreaded, “How old do you think the earth
is?” question. Once such a question is asked, any conservative worth his weight
should seriously consider ending the interview/debate right then and there.
This question is nothing more than a blatant attempt by
liberals and their apologists to paint conservatives as “religious nuts” or “
anti-science
bumblers.” As Paul Krugman of the New York Times put it after Marco Rubio
was asked about the age of the earth, “Like striated rock beds that speak of
deep time, his inability to acknowledge scientific evidence speaks of the
anti-rational mind-set that has taken over his political party.”
Of course, what liberals are really trying to get at is
whether their conservative target accepts Darwinian evolution (D.E.) as “the
gospel” when it comes to how life began. Without billions of years, D.E. is as
dead as a dinosaur fossil. This is why liberals are so committed to millions
and billions of years. Thus, the conservative retort should aim to redirect
back to D.E.
Use questions such as: do you really believe that humans,
monkeys, elephants, antelopes, lions, lizards, apples, apricots, roses, and
rhododendrons all have a common ancestor?
Do you believe that all life on earth came into being without a Creator?
What does D.E. contribute to operational science today? (In other words, what
is D.E., other than an attempt to explain our existence without a Creator?) If
D.E. is so fundamental to science (as
most
evolutionists
will claim), then why is it possible to reject completely D.E. and
millions/billions of years and still operate perfectly well in
any scientific field (including
medicine)? And similarly, as Rubio put it, what does D.E. have to do with the
gross domestic product or economic growth of the
United States?
It would also be worth pointing out (
as I did last year)
that two of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Isaac Newton and Johannes
Kepler, both calculated the earth to be only a few thousand years old.
Kepler calculated a creation date of 3992,
and Newton firmly defended a
creation date of about 4000 B.C.
The most important thing to remember when faced with
difficult questions is that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and there
is an Author of this truth. We will only get the right answers to the difficult
questions when we allow ourselves to be guided by His wisdom. As
Newton put it, “Gravity
explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets
in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.”
(See this column at
American Thinker.)
Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
