Today, however, especially in the midst of the exciting political contest, it truly does appear that this God gap is beginning to narrow, as more and more people of faith seem to allow themselves to be swayed by the media, pop culture and, yes, peer pressure (apparently we didn’t learn the whole “just say no” thing quite well enough in school).  Many republicans, some of them good religious conservatives, have begun to take a good, honest look at what the democrats might have to offer.

And on the surface, of course, there is a great deal there which seems very attractive to the religious.

The Obama campaign, specifically, has been trumpeting a message of “change,” of “honesty,” and of “integrity” from one corner of the nation to the other.  He has been packing stadiums full of enthusiastic young people who believe every word from his mouth with just as much fervor and intensity as they decry every word from the much-maligned current President.

To a religious person, isn’t Barack Obama exactly what this country needs to give it the moral high ground?  Jesus taught the importance of integrity, honesty and peace, just like Barack, didn’t he?  Jesus wanted us all to stop fighting and get along, did he not?  Jesus wanted us to care for the sick (socialized healthcare anyone?), to feed the hungry (homeless advocacy laws?) and to help the poor (limitless welfare?).  Isn’t the Democratic party more aligned with the teachings of religion than the Republican party?

This is precisely the obstacle faced by we religious conservatives who know better – who can see through the mask of Obama’s “truthful” and “messianic” pretense, as well as that of the Democratic party as a whole.

Now, the question that must be answered is this:  Why do so many Republicans think that theirs is the right party for people of faith?  Can’t someone be religious and be a Democrat?  Isn’t it both judgmental and naïve to believe that the conservative party alone may carry the torch of true religion?

The answers come quickly: Because it is.  Yes.  Perhaps.

The first question is the most important.

While it is true that the Bible – and the teachings of other major religions – teach us to help each other, I do not believe that by giving full responsibility in this task to the government we are doing justice to the “spirit” of the law.  We are not called to let someone else help the needy for us, we are supposed to do it ourselves.

Being a democrat and watching the government choose where it reapportions the massive amounts of wealth that it takes from you every year should be no replacement for helping others ourselves, yet to Democrats, this is what it has become.  The increase in welfare in this country has served as a sort of "out" for those who in their hearts want to help others, but don't actually want to make the effort to do it themselves.  Voting democratic has been, to some, a salve to ease the conscience regarding cheritable giving.

Republicans (where there is a far greater majority of self-proclaimed people of faith) seem to have a better understanding of what "charity" really means (though we are in no way perfect in this sense).  We understand that to help the poor and the helpless we alone are the answer, not a bigger government.  George Will of the Washington Post wrote an excellent article detailing the statistics regarding just how much more Republicans give to charity than Democrats (even despite the fact that Democrats, on average, are wealthier).  This must-read article can be found here: http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/551172.html

So both parties give to the poor, so aren't both sides right?

• First, personal charitable donations can be chosen and given very deliberately to the most important or needy charities (as seen from the perspective of each individual). 
• Second, billions of dollars every year are not lost on government expenses before it ever arrives to those in need. 
• Third, private organizations are unbelievably more efficient than any government program, which any economist can tell you is a good thing.  And when the market is allowed into the charity arena, even greater efficiency can be obtained.
• Fourth, a religious person tends to want to give their money to organizations which possess a philosophy that matches up with their own.  Most Republicans would never willingly donate money to planned parenthood or a needle exchange program in the name of charity.  But when it is the government saying where the charitable donations go, you can be sure that the recipients are not going to necessarily be the ones that you would choose.