Analyzing Alan

So I've been having a political discussion with a co-worker lately and he brought the Presidential candidate, Alan Keyes, to my attention. Normally, I'm not into elections, but this year I've become a virtual sponge. I'm soaking up as much knowledge as I can get. And now, with less than a week to go before the election, I'm seriously ready to have this over and done with. But until then, I'm going to continue nosing around. Which brings me to Mr. Alan Keyes.

This co-worker sent me a link on YouTube in which Mr. Keyes and Mr. Obama engage in a debate during their race for a senate seat. My co-worker knows I'm an Obama fan and expected me to be offended by Mr. Keyes' continued mention of God during the debate. However, as a Christian, I'm never offended when God's word goes forth. Mr. Keyes did a magnificent job in explaining how his faith colors his work as a public servant. What he said is scripturally sound. Still, I just can't ever support the man.

Here's why.

While I applaud his staunch faith and strong religious principles, I can't help but wonder what would happen to everyone else in the nation who doesn't share in his beliefs. Even though I am a Bible-believing Christian, I don't even believe I would fit in his narrow view of a shared faith in God because he is a Catholic. Catholic and Protestants have some very well known areas in which we disagree even though that doesn't mean that we love God any less.

Then I have to take it step past the Protestants to the Jews. Where would they fit in Mr. Keyes' idealized view of America? Then there are the Buddhists and the Muslims and the Druids and the Wiccans. Is there even a place for them in Mr. Keyes' America? What about the atheists? Would their needs be ignored all together?

As the leader of a nation that is as diverse as ours is, it seems to me that a public servant needs to have a frame of mind that will include as many people as possible in his plans for said nation. Mr. Keyes simply does not fit that bill.

Let's take a look at his stance on some issues.

As expected, he is solidly pro life. He's also against stem cell research. I commend him for his dedication to this noble cause. However, I also fault him for favoring factors that contribute to the problem of abortion like poverty. He is in favor of ending the welfare. While the system admittedly has its flaws, it also, on occasion, works.

To me, it's unfair to remove a woman's choice if you're also going to tie her hands when it comes to caring and providing for the child. At least give them both a chance for survival. If killing welfare weren't enough to make life hard for this tiny family, Mr. Keyes also opposes raising the minimum wage which all but guarantees the mother will have to work multiple jobs to raise this child. To me, this is just too much to ask of a person.

When talking about the issues of liberty and security, Mr. Keyes quoted Ben Franklin to sum up his view, "Those who would exchange liberty for security deserve neither." I find it interesting that the candidate favors liberty at this juncture, but doesn't when the issue of who controls a woman's body comes up.

Additionally, Mr. Keyes ends his "Religious Freedom" section of his website with, "I oppose any efforts to use government power to impose views that contravene religious conscience on matters such as abortion and homosexuality." Except, isn't that exactly what he'd be doing by usurping the constitutional basis of Roe v. Wade and brings me back to my original concern. No matter how much we may disagree with an atheist, they are entitled to the protection of the constitution. Oh yeah, and it's not just the atheists who are getting the abortions.

Overall, Mr. Keyes seems to be a pretty good guy. I like the fact that he has solid Christian principles and he's not afraid to stand on them. Still, I can't shake my concern that in his unyielding faith, he has forgotten to make provision for man's sin nature. Even God made provision for that.