Dear Mr. President,
I write this in the hopes that all is well with you and your family. Last night you gave your acceptance speech at the DNC. I've not watched the speech but I've read the text and its for that reason I'm penning this blog. I've no delusions of grandeur here, no expectations that this will somehow find its way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. My goal is to simply try to articulate a few policy differences I have with you.
Let me say from the outset that I do not believe you are a secret Muslim who intends to destroy America and institute Sharia law. I do not believe that you hate white people. I do not believe that you were born in Kenya. On the contrary there is much about you I admire and appreciate.
I appreciate the obvious affection you have for your family. Your wife and children matter to you, sir, and that is plain to everyone. Your affection for your family is a wonderful example to men everywhere. I think you love our nation just as I do and desire to see America succeed. Though we may have different ideas as to how to make that happen we both want our nation to be who she can be. I admire your willingness to publicly identify with Christianity. Though we would most certainly have our theological differences, you have stated on several occasions that your trust is in Christ. From a theological standpoint, that makes you my brother and I'm grateful to God for a leader who trusts in Christ as I do.
However, there are several disagreements I have with your policies. In your first campaign much political hay was made of your statement regarding a redistribution of wealth. Mr. President, certainly you can't be serious? Where in the Constitution do we find such an idea? If wealth is attained by illegal means then laws are in place to deal with those crimes. If they aren't strong enough, Congress can legislate tougher penalties. If, however, the chief motivation is a desire for financial equality then, Mr. President, we must acknowledge that such an end is simply unattainable through legislative means. How does one determine how much money another can have? How does one decide where the line is to be drawn? And what, Mr. President, gives me or you or anyone else the right to tell anyone else how much or how little they're allowed to have? Are not such restrictions contrary to the very nature of this great nation?
Second, I disagree with your position on abortion. Mr. President it is both uncivilized and unethical to allow a person to decide to end the life of another simply for the sake of convenience. I would concede that there are instances where abortion may be the only option. If the life of the mother is in obvious and imminent peril then yes, I would support saving her life. But you know the statistics better than I, Mr. President. You know how rare such cases are. How, Mr. President, can we justify the killing of a fellow citizen? We speak of a woman's right to choose her own reproductive rights and that's true. But once a woman decides to engage in the act of intercourse--the process by which babies are conceived--can it not be argued that she has made that choice? Some would argue that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest. Perhaps. But again, can we agree that such instances are certainly not the norm? Mr. President, arguments are often centered around when life begins. You've stated such questions are above your pay grade. I understand the sentiment behind the statement. But can't we agree that if abortion stops a heart from beating, if it causes brain function to cease, if it causes life to end, can't we agree that someone has died? By any medical definition, sir, those qualifications would point to death. Why then do we apply different standards to an unborn child? Why, if a baby in the mother's womb isn't a person, why are there federal laws protecting the eggs of endangered turtles? If a fetus isn't actually alive before birth then how can we prosecute those who destroy those eggs? After all, what have they actually killed?
Finally, I disagree with the inconsistent way in which you appeal to the Bible to support your positions. I've heard you mockingly refer to passages throughout the Pentateuch and ask the question, "Which of these verses should we use to make public policy?" That's a fair question, sir, but if you then use the teachings of Jesus to enforce why we must care for the least of these in our society, is that not inconsistent? If we can't use one portion of scripture to make policy decisions, how can we use another? If we appeal to one section of the New Testament to enforce social policies for the poor how can we ignore other sections of the New Testament when making an argument for social policies regarding marriage? The inconsistency is obvious and staggering.
Mr. President, I'm grateful for public servants. I'm grateful that you're working as hard as you can to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. But I have serious and substantial disagreements with you. And that is why, Mr. President, you have my respect and you have my prayers. But you do not have my vote.