By now you know that on Aug. 7 the primary polls will open and the opportunity exists for Missouri adults to cast their preference in contested races. There are many candidates to vet before making a clear determination. There is also a vote on an important Constitutional amendment.
Don’t trust the secular media or their commercials. Just because something is said on television doesn’t make it so. Political ads are rife with half-truth and innuendo. No wonder they call it “mud-slinging.”
You wouldn’t want to drink muddy water. So you ask, “How would you clear the muddy water?” You run the water through a filter to catch the particles that cause the muddiness.
Run every candidate through the three-fold filter of common sense on these issues:
1. Is this candidate an advocate for the sanctity of life? Those of us who believe life is a sacred gift from God have learned over the course of decades that it is not enough for a candidate to state he/she is pro-life. We want to know if a person is determined to be an active voice to protect children in the womb and with end-of-life issues.
There are plenty of candidates who will say they are pro-life and then waffle on important votes. It is time we had candidates that we elect to office who are on the frontlines of advocacy for innocent children, the ones yet-to-be born, the ones who need protection from predators and the ones who are born with significant physiological or psychological impediments.
2. Is the candidate an advocate for the sanctity of marriage between one woman and one man? The advocates for alternate forms of marriage and family are aggressively seeking legitimization. They want and are willing to pay for candidates who will give their agenda a platform for articulation. What they despise are candidates who believe that the biblical standard for a marriage, the only legitimate standard, is a life-long relationship between one man and one woman.
Every time people deviate from that standard, that choice generates huge problems for people and for cultures. If a candidate begins with excuses about marriage and family, how can he/she be confident advocates for the basic element of society, the family?
3. Is the candidate an advocate for Constitutional religious liberty that accommodates faith in the public square? After thoroughly reading many of the documents by the Constitutional framers (not reading what others have said they say), it is clear that their idea was never a government sterilized of expressions of faith. The majority of the framers were men of deep faith and they expressed their faith. However, they emphatically did not want a government faith – that is, a particular church. It was beyond their comprehension that this form of government could survive under the dominion of a hierarchal church or a secular worldview.
So we must ask, “Does this particular candidate stand on the side of defending the right of conscience for every person? Or does political expediency outweigh this precious freedom?”
Filters help us see things more clearly. Some of the political noise simply muddies the landscape.
Aug. 7 is about democratic clarity. There is a simple “yes” or “no” vote on a prayer amendment for the Missouri State Constitution. Some have complained that such an amendment is unnecessary because faith in the public square is guaranteed. You have to ask, “Then why all the flurry of court rulings restricting public expressions of faith? Why are organizations like the ACLU and Americans United always on the side of restricting public expressions of faith by Christians?” The courts have muddied the water; therefore, the state legislature believed that a state Constitutional amendment was the best way to clear things.
In this great state of Missouri with this Constitutional amendment, people will have the freedom to pray or express their faith, and the government or its agents are obliged to not interfere or restrain by decree or coercion.