As to the remainder of your comment, yes, it is quite clear we have some fundamental differences of opinion. And do you mean Christendom in terms of being a prevailing religion and having influence on politics and culture? This I accept. Christendom as a form of governance, wherein doctrine decrees public policy, no I do not. I believe this is unwise from both a theological standpoint and a historical one. I cannot imagine I’ve ever written anything that would lead you to believe otherwise.

I also find the notion of the Democratic party being little more than the playground of heretics quite ridiculous. Nevertheless, I appreciate your suggestions regarding what faith I should profess and the party or group with which I should align myself. I will take this under advisement.

And finally, I am flattered that you read my blog and hope you will continue to do so. In time, I’m sure you’ll find my father’s displeasure over my willingness to unabashedly cross party lines is a recurrent topic here – and has been for quite some time. And I’d consider the internet to be going “quite public with it.”

However, should I opt to support a Democratic candidate in the upcoming congressional election, I suppose I could profess this upon all the town squares within in the district and hand out campaign buttons as I go.

Don’t suppose you’d want me to save you one, huh?

A.

You are right that we see the world differently. I believe in the Constitution of the United States, and that it was meant to be interpreted as written. I am not one to blab on about what I think of this or that issue before we find out whether the Constitution first has anything to say about it.

I oppose the notion of federal funding for aborticide and federal protection for the same for the same reason I oppose the PATRIOT Act: It is unconstitutional.

Perhaps you are eaten up by the reality that the Constitution was written for, in the words of John Adams “a moral and religious people, and it is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other.” Christendom, it would seem, is not something you embrace deep into the depths of yourself. You embrace the modern, liberal view of “balance,” which is really an excuse for the cultural de-Christianization of the nation.

You are free to believe and embrace all of this, of course, as we are all free to believe and embrace what we like. If anti-religious or anti-faith feeling (which is really all that the idea of “separation of church and state” is intended to bring about-the secularization of society-any talk of “balance” in this way is a sort of soft social rejection of cultural Christendom) is your cup of tea, you were right to go to the Democratic Party meeting that I read you went to and were afraid to share with your family. The modern Democratic Party is crawling with secularists and believers in “balance.” If that is what you believe in, you might as well not be ashamed in it and go quite public with it.

As the believer must confess with his lips the Lord Jesus, so the secularist must also not be afraid of his or her faith-and it is a faith-and be unafraid to associate with those who also profess the faith.

It’s basically the same composition: predominately white, predominately male, predominately conservative, and predominately Christian (SCOTUS having five Catholics, an Episcopalian and a Protestant – all appointed by Republican presidents.)

The “conservative” majority of the Court has already influenced numerous rulings. And whereas you and I have differing points of view on many issues and because I believe opposing viewpoints help create some balance, the notion of one more conservative jurist slapping their butt on the big bench – particularly to replace Ginsberg or Breyer (even Kennedy or Souter) troubles me.

So, yes, I’d consider an Obama nomination/appointment beneficial.