For some time now, there has been something that particularly bothers me in the political realm, and it has something to do with a party platform. 

In modern America, party platforms are reviewed (and possibly re-written) prior to each presidential election. According to one news outlet, “The platforms represent each party's political identity and direction, the product of intense intra-party debate and soul searching.”  Another expresses it this way: “A political party platform is the formal announcement of the policies, promises, and objectives that a political party wants to achieve.”  These platforms are helpful in discerning the corporately expressed beliefs and desires of a given political party. 

When considering a candidate for political office – whether the powerful office of the President of the United States or something as comparatively insignificant as the office of County Tax Assessor – a quick look at the candidate’s party affiliation conveys a lot. Each candidate has aligned himself with a specific political party. When we recognize that a party platform indicates identity, direction, and desired objectives, then the candidate who wears the badge of a political party makes an implicit statement about his own personal defining beliefs, direction, and desired objectives.

What has been a particular burr in my saddle for some time is the Democrat Party’s enshrining of “abortion.”  It is really quite amazing to me – and a testament to the willing ignorance (at best) or the outright evil of humanity – that abortion has found such roots in our society. Language, science, logic, conscience, and Scripture all interweave to create a rock-solid case for the preservation of life within the womb. We cannot express abortion (linguistically) as less than murder without obfuscation or deceit. Science indicates that human life begets human life. That “thing” inside of a mother is distinctly human – and a human distinct from its mother. Logical thought leads us to conclude that, since the unborn offspring of humans are living, innocent, and human, and since “abortion” is the intentional “ending” of the unborn, then abortion is the termination of an innocent human being (otherwise known as murder). The natural conscience seems to understand the tragedy of this particular act – the intentional killing of a child. Of course, the Scripture reveals that we don’t have such a right – “Thou shalt not kill.”

Though I would disagree with Democrats on a number of issues (views of marriage, sexuality, religious freedom, “equity,” economics, free speech, etc.), this first issue of abortion is a show-stopper for me. When a democrat – particularly one running for office – claims that he wants the best for America or that he values freedom and equality, I can’t take him seriously. The disparity between his words and his platform are glaring. The obvious contradiction between his statements and the platform on which he stands to make them undermines his credibility.

However, this inability to take someone seriously extends to other areas of life.

COVID brought a seeming mental stupor to our medical institutions. However, we know that not everybody is that ignorant. If anyone should know the inability of cheap paper masks to magically filter airborne virus particles out of the air, it should be medical professionals! Surgeons understand that even fit-tested N-95 masks have their limitations. Mask mandates by hospitals and other medical professionals have nearly crippled their reputation – at least for me personally. I can certainly respect a doctor’s many years of study and his earned expertise, but medical institutions corporately have demonstrated an extraordinary political bent and/or cowardice.

The inconsistency of supposed “underlying values” and the statements that people make are nowhere more concerning, though, than in the integral structure of the home. Many parents go to church or express some supposed “moral platform,” but their everyday lives express an entirely different set of core values. Children are often commanded to obey one set of stated values, while the parents operate off of a different set. The rules don’t seem to equally apply; the double standard is easily seen. This may be why, when a child gains any level of autonomy, he rebels from the standards imposed on him.

The fundamental problem in each of these cases is not a matter of ignorance, but rather some mixture of pride, deceit, and self-serving. Beware of a misalignment between what you say you believe and what you practice. If you want women to have the right to murder their young, then say so. If the science contradicts the political or corporate elite, then say so. If you want to use the Bible as a manipulative tool to make your kids do what you are not willing to do, then at least be transparent enough to admit it. Then, you’re at least being honest.

But when your platform embraces something so irrational, when your mandate contradicts your decades of expertise and training, or when your rules apply to me but not to you . . .

I can’t take you seriously.