By Dennis Rowan
October 25, 2004

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked...." Galations 6:7, (NIV)

Dear Mr. Burnette:

I read your article entitled "Democrats: Bring Christian Vote Home" as published in a newspaper. You stated in your final paragraph, "... the philosophy of the Democratic Party is more consistent with the teaching of Jesus Christ than the philosophy of the Republican Party." Let me be up front in saying that I don't think either of these two parties can claim Jesus Christ as their mascot. I will do little to defend the actions of the Republican Party, and nothing to defend the Democratic Party, but I will go to great lengths to defend God's Word, the Bible. People who use Scripture in attempting to make political points need to do so with extreme caution since the Bible says, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked..." (Gal. 6:7). Since you used two Scripture references and made other assumptions about Christianity and how this supposedly aligns with Democratic philosophy, you opened yourself up to having others use Scripture to rebut your remarks.

You used Scripture in an effort to prove a point or two, but it is quite a stretch to say that Jesus' feeding of the 5,000 and Democratic ideas are one and the same. First of all, Jesus was not addressing a joint session of Congress. While I admit the distinctions between Democrats and Republicans at the highest levels are not large, the following two philosophies tend to separate them.

Most Democrats, especially when making reference to Jesus, often confuse individual responsibility with the government's taking money (taxes) from some and giving money to others (the victims). Jesus instructed the individual, not the government, to take care of the poor. For example, if you read your Bible closely (1 Timothy, chapter 5) you'll find instructions to families saying they are to take care of the widows. If that is not enough then other Christians are to pitch in. There are no such instructions for the taxpayer to take care of people in that way.

The more government gives to people the less people are inclined to take individual responsibility for their actions. Therein lies the problem with the Democratic Party philosophy. Let me give two examples.

Democrats need to come down out of the ozone layer and get a grip on real life. I suggest the U.S. Congress pass a bill to increase medical insurance premiums and to levy taxes for those who are homosexual. It would be like taxes on alcohol and cigarettes; tax those who participate. I realize we could not call a tax on homosexuals a sin tax because it seems most Democrats in the U.S. Congress don't like the word "sin". I'm sure someone in the party, perhaps from the California delegation, could come up with a better sounding name for it.

Some of your reasoning was at best, very lame. For example, you say "no one can honestly say that making abortion illegal will stop all abortions." Are you implying that laws are only good if everyone keeps those laws? Laws against murder haven't stopped killing, have they? Laws against drunk driving haven't stopped drunk driving, have they? Laws against theft didn't stop theft, did they? You are a lawyer and I am not, but I think anyone in or out of a courtroom would have to agree that your argument is worse than flawed. There is a law against murder because murder is wrong, not because the law stops all murder. Having knowledge of that truth, why don't we make all murder Illegal, including the murder of unborn babies? Huh, why don't we? And please don't try to blur the line between murder and a woman's choice. In regard to that unborn baby, WWJD, say it's the mother's choice? Not on your life would Jesus say kill the baby!

People who talk about the love of Jesus and omit what He has to say about judgment are either purposely deceitful, or ignorant of what the Bible has to say. You stated, "As more homosexuals come 'out of the closet' and the issue touches more families personally, perhaps people will become more accepting or at least less judgmental." Do you have a Bible verse or two that will back up the assertion that judgment is unnecessary because more people are "coming out of the closet" and their behavior becoming more acceptable? God doesn't make decisions according to polling data: he does not change his definition of sin once enough people say it is an okay behavior. God is a loving God, but Jesus did have something to say about evildoers and the impending judgment. I started this letter with Scripture and I end it with another Bible quote: