Skip to main content
Home2012 Articles2011 Articles2010 Articles2009 Articles2008 Articles2007 Articles
 2009 Articles 
Sunday, April 26 2009

Coming off a terrifically mismanaged presidential campaign, Steve Schmidt, former top adviser to John McCain, made his first public appearance at a gathering of the Log Cabin Republicans.  Speaking to this group of homosexual activists, Schmidt demonstrated the very lack of conservative grounding that plagued his candidate - an illness that the antidote of conservative darling Sarah Palin couldn't even cure.


In his speech, Schmidt addressed the Republican Party in general and warned them to lighten up on their opposition to homosexual unions and marriage.  "If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party," he said. "And in a free country a political party cannot be viable in the long-term if it is seen as a sectarian party."


This type of intellectual sophistry should be rejected by anyone who holds public debate in high regard and is serious about policy discussions.  Consider what Schmidt is actually proposing when he condemns putting issues to a religious test.  He is arguing to remove moral discernment from any public policy.  That, of course, is as ignorant as it is impossible.  The purpose of any law is to declare certain acts right and others wrong.  Pretending that moral discernment should not be a primary factor in this process is absurd.


George Washington stated that "the foundation of our national policy should be laid in private morality."  In other words, lawmakers' first and foremost concern in crafting law should be to consider whether the act in question is consistent with moral truth. 


What's more, Schmidt himself is guilty of the very act he supposedly condemns.  The reason Schmidt endorses homosexual marriage is because he has determined that it is unequal, discriminatory, and wrong to not grant homosexuals the right to wed each other.  To do that, he utilized his own concept of moral discernment, rooted not in divine revelation but in his own intellect, to make his public policy decision.  The difference then is not whether policy decisions will be put to a religious test, but rather which religious test.


Christians believe that God has revealed His truth to man in the Bible, and therefore it provides a firm basis upon which to build a morally upright society.  This is done not by enforcing a strict religious code that all citizens are forced to obey (this is forbidden by both the Constitution and the Bible), but by providing immutable, unchanging moral absolutes as a guide.  And, though typically found on the left, that is what humanists like Schmidt oppose. 


Fair enough.  But we should demand that they are honest about the alternative they offer.  Far from removing a religious test, they prefer substituting a religion of humanity - using the wisdom, reason, and ever-changing philosophies of man as the basis for civil society.  Both foundations are equally religious.


This recognition may undermine the false choice Schmidt attempts to engineer, but it is critical if we wish to have a serious discussion.  And we should. 


With 200 years of American prosperity and happiness demonstrating the outcome of a society based in Christian principle, this is a debate that I and any Christian conservative should be eager to engage.  And lest anyone attempt to contradict the reality of a Biblical foundation for the United States, take it up with John Quincy Adams who confirmed, "the highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."


The historical legacy of countries founded upon secular humanist values is not quite so appealing.  In fact, the subjective whims and baseless principles that characterize humanistic thought have left a wake of death and destruction in every society they have come to dominate.  There is a reason that humanists have found it safer to live in this country - one that grounds the basic rights of humanity in a constant, unchanging, moral authority - than in those that embrace humanism.


If Mr. Schmidt or others want to make the case why the Republican Party should follow the lead of the Democrats, abandon Christian morality, and begin using the religion of secular humanism as the basis for their platform, they are more than free to do so.  But they should at least have the decency to be honest about what they're seeking.


This is a debate about whether we will cling to our Judeo-Christian underpinnings or toss them aside.  Now that we're clear, let's have at it.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 03:05 pm   |  Permalink   |  5 Comments  |  Email
Sunday, April 12 2009

As I was sitting in church waiting for the start of the service, my grandpa came walking towards me pointing his finger.  No matter how old I get, and no matter how long he's been out of the U.S. Navy, that's still an intimidating sight.  As he approached me, his voice quivered as he said, "We saved that continent dare my president apologize for this country's arrogance."  My grandpa is right.  Americans need not apologize to the world for their arrogance; rather, Americans should apologize to their forefathers for the arrogance of their president.


Barack Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States has confirmed the naiveté so many of us feared during the election cycle.  But worse than that, it has also demonstrated that our president suffers from either a complete misunderstanding of our heritage and history, or an utter contempt for it.  Neither is excusable. 


Garnering cheers from the French of all people, President Obama declared, "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."  Consider that Obama spoke these words just 500 miles from the beaches of Normandy, where the sand is still stained with 65 year old blood of "arrogant Americans."


Indeed, columnist Mark Whittington observes, "One should remind Mr. Obama and the Europeans how America has 'shown arrogance' by saving Europe from itself innumerable times in the 20th Century. World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and the wars in the Balkans were largely resolved by American blood, treasure, and leadership."  But all that appears lost on the president's seemingly insatiable quest to mend fences he imagines have been tarnished by the bullish George W. Bush. 


If Obama wishes to continue trampling the presidential tradition of showing class to former office holders and publicly trash Bush for his own personal gain, so be it.  But all Americans should make clear that no man - even if he is the president - will tarnish the legacy of those Americans who have gone before us.  Ours is not a history of arrogance.  It is a history of courage, self-sacrifice, and honor.


When abusive monarchs repressed the masses, Americans resisted and overthrew them.  When misguided policies led to the unjust oppression of fellow citizens, Americans rebelled and overturned them.  When millions of impoverished and destitute wretches sought a new beginning, Americans threw open the door and welcomed them.  When imperial dictators were on the march, Americans surrendered their lives to stop them.  When communist thugs threatened world peace, Americans bled to defeat them.  When an entire continent was overwhelmed with famine and hunger, Americans gave of themselves to sustain it.  When terrorist madmen killed the innocent and subjugated millions, Americans led the fight to topple them.


This is the legacy that generations of Americans have left.  If President Obama seeks stronger relations with the world community, perhaps he should begin by reminding them of these very truths, rather than condemning his own countrymen on foreign shores.


This "obsessive need to put down his own country," has caused blogger James Lewis to call President Obama a "stunningly ignorant man" who has evidently never spoken to a concentration camp survivor, a Cuban refugee, a boat person from Vietnam, a Soviet dissident, or a survivor of Mao's purges.


Unfortunately, I can no longer bring myself to give Mr. Obama that benefit of the doubt.  Not after looking at the pain in my grandpa's eyes...a man who still carries shrapnel in his body from his service to this country.


As a student and teacher of history, I recognize that America has made mistakes...plenty of them, in fact.  But one of the great things about our people has been their courage and humility in admitting and correcting those mistakes.  God willing they will prove that willingness again in four years and correct the mistake that is the presidency of Barack Obama.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:29 pm   |  Permalink   |  85 Comments  |  Email
    common sense makes a comeback
    site designed by Keith Parker   --  sign up for Peter Heck Mailing List here