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.

Yes, you read that right.  And no I am not being facetious or playing some tricky word game with you.

For perhaps the first time in this entire campaign season, I have found an actual issue on which Barack Obama and I can agree!  Can you believe it? 

(go ahead and skip this next paragraph if you don’t want to hear what I have against Barack, but would rather just learn where we agree)

Now of course it’s not enough to make me vote for him or anything - after all, it’s hard for one issue to drown out all the other places the two of us disagree - my belief in the power of people vs. his belief in the power of government, my belief that people should be encouraged to work hard vs. his belief that the government should reward the lazy, my ability to understand the way the world actually works vs. his belief that even the worst people in this world should be given a diplomatic hug, my respect for human life vs. his belief in abortion (of all types), my belief that there is no place in this nation for deranged, racist, manipulative preachers vs. his belief that they should be given a pass.

I could, obviously, go on.

But that’s not the point here.  The point is that we’ve found some middle ground.  Yesterday, Barack announced that if he was elected, he would "seriously consider" getting rid of the penny.

Was he serious?  I really don’t care, because I’m fairly confident that he’ll lose the general election, but it’s still a noble sentiment.

Is it a big deal, though?  Kind of, yes.  After all, it costs far more to make pennies than they are actually worth, which means that the Treasury Department wastes millions (perhaps more) every year just to make these little things that we don’t really care about in the first place.  We could save them in a jar, saying to ourselves (it’s surprising how quickly these things add up), but then when that huge jar is full and we take it into the bank, we are equally surprised to learn that we did all that work for a lousy $7.

So I applaude you, Barack Obama, for having the courage to buck tradition and to take a stand against the worthless penny (even though the fact that it still exists has surely got something to do with the lobbying of your home state of Illinois, so proud are they of their Lincoln).

You won’t get my vote (nor will you get the vote of the silent majority who know better in this country), but you made me smile today.

Now... John McCain, if you’re reading this (you know you are), what say you about the penny?  Will you stand with me to fight against what quite nearly amounts to a treasury department version of pork barrel spending? 

Make it happen, gents.  Make it happen.