WAYNEPARK.COM

Discipling the Future of the New City

“How Can You Be A Christian And Vote Democrat?”

10/4/12 – Well the election season is upon us again. Last night’s opener between Romney and Obama has burst forth the punditry once again, and here the evangelical Christian debate / conversation continues: “Can you indeed be a Christian and vote Democrat?” Read: I am not making a political statement here that you can / or cannot (as the sea of comments below seem to misunderstand; to be fair the converse is presented here: “How Can You Be A Christian And Vote Republican?“), but am raising the question to present multiple viewpoints that indeed, Christ does not toe one single party line. There are believers of various stripes, and perhaps hearing other perspectives (even differing ones) can be helpful to expanding our worldviews. I know for me personally, as a lifetime Northerner now living and working in Texas I have had to expand my views. Should we not all? At least be open to it? So I’m re-posting the below, an older post that generated a lot of comments and heat, because discerning Christians want to know: “Can you be a Christian and vote Democrat?”

Here’s the original:

I guess what is at heart is the question if the Christian religion can be aligned with a political platform. I, for one, believe the answer is “no”, however do believe Christianity does have a role to play in politics. But it’s like playing with fire. Power is fire.

Spurred on by a post by DJ Chuang – I write on a topic that has come to me in various forms; blog comments (which I regret deleting), debates w/ fundys, and even having one good lady querying my salvation. Contrary to what you may think (madame), salvation is by faith and NOT by voting Republican. So DJ cites several great sources (which I won’t link here) starting from the ’08 Nat’l Pastors Conference and a seminar that took place three-ways between Shane Claiborne, Greg Boyd and Chuck Colson, three eminents in N.American evangelicalism today. The discussion continues online via Greg Boyd’s blog (which I read regularly) and DJ picks up the thread, but you can offer your two cents here: Whaddayou think? Can you possibly be a Christian and vote Dem? Are you engaging in heresy if you do so?

Here’s another one: if you vote Dem does that necessarily qualify you as a “liberal” Christian?

About these ads

78 Comments»

  goodtimepolitics wrote @

Which muslim is lying here?

http://goodtimepolitics.com/2008/06/12/obamas-sister-says-he-was-muslim/

  theplatformfortruthministry wrote @

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” 2 Timothy 2:15. ( NIV).

  Matt wrote @

how can you be christian and vote republican?

  Johnny wrote @

This is an interesting topic. I am a Christian and I usually vote Democratic, although I have voted Republican too. There are Christian’s who say they will not vote Democratic because Democrats are pro-choice and they have tolerance for gays and lesbians. While I respect everyone’s views I do see them as short sighted. Most Republicans believe in the death penalty and fighting wars yet they are pro-life. In my mind that is a contradiction. We can go kill people if it suits us and we can kill criminals instead of trying to rehabilitate them but when it comes to babies hands off.

The bottom line is this while I am a Christian I can’t quote the bible . I do however know that we are not supposed to judge others. That is for God to do. So how can we judge gays, lesbians or anyone else? We have to vote for the candidate that we believe will represent our best interests, including our Christianity.

  Jim wrote @

Johnny, the Bible condemns murder. The OT said, “…an eye for an eye,a tooth for a tooth.”
If you can’t see the difference between murdering an innocent baby and killing a a murderer or rapist to prevent harm to others, Maybe you should reconsider your stand.
As for judging, the Bible also says, “By their fruits you shall know them” (matthew 7:16). This means that one’s lifestyle WILL show you if they are Godly people. Not everybody who claims to be a Christian is. Jesus Himself said, “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. 11 Depart from me, you evildoers.’ (Matthew 7:22-23). This, of course, means that many will claim to be saved who aren’t. Hitler thought he was ridding the world of Jews for the good of mankind. The KKK thinks they are obeying God in persecuting blacks. They are NOT Bible Christians. Now, am I judging them as the Bible says – “Judge not that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1) – or am I seeing what a person is by his beliefs? One can be judged by his/her lifestyle what kind of person (s)he is. If (s)he lies and steals, (s)he’s either not saved or is terribly backslidden. That’s the one part we might not know unless we know the person very well…but we CAN tell that a murder is not a Godly person. They judge themselves by their sinful actions. We all sin, but a Christian regrets his/her sins because the hurt God. A lost sinner doesn’t care about that.
If you are voting for one party or another just because you belong to that party, you’re a moron. The idea of a public election is voting for the person you feel is best qualified for the job. Am intelligent Christian DOES vote according to conscience.
One thing worth mentioning is that I refer to born-again Christians…NOT those fools who are being placated by the “mega-churches.” People like Joel Osteen don’t talk about sin because they are afraid of offending people. (Ogteen’s emphasis is in making his members financially sound…not spiritually saved and secure!) Jesus, John the Baptist, etc., were very blunt and condemning of those who refuse to turn to God. The whole Bible is about the Law of God, the results of disobedience, the pleasures of obedience, and the world’s need of a Savior because man is continually sinful. According to the BIble, Jesus is the only way out of our path to eternal death. Now, if a person doesn’t know (s)he’s lost, (s)he thinks (s)he has no use of a Savior and therefore doesn’t know God. If a pastor can’t tell people they are sinners, he cannot possibly lead them to the Savior…and that’s what the mega-churches are all about. They convince people that God will take them into heaven just as sinful as they are and no change is necessary.
Think about this: if we aren’t converted but instead detest God, why would we ever be happy at the throne of God in the first place??
Alena, maybe you can now see that one’s salvation doesn’t depend upon how one votes, but one’s relationship with God will DEFINITELY determine how one votes. If the Bible condemns murder and you support abortion, something’s wrong. If you support homosexuality when the BIble condemns it, something is certainly wrong. I don’t hate gays, but just what they stand for. They cannot intentionally and habitually do something God calls “an abomination” and claim to be His child.
PAUL: you’re absolutely right! A politician or other public servant cannot force his religion upon others, but his/her Christian faith DOES guide him to make the correct moral decisions in his/her leadership position! Well said!

  Henry wrote @

But why are the two issues of abortion and gay rights so paramount to christians? The bible mentions homosexuality a handful of times, and doesn’t mention abortion at all. Yet it is full of condemnation of those that worship money and power.

what about issues like taking care of the poor, widows, children, the disabled, and the elderly?

as for your statement on an ‘eye for an eye’, there are so many old testament laws and statements that christians simply ignore (such as stoning disobedient children).

  Michael wrote @

You must not read the the Bible much. Homosexuality is one of a small number of sins that deserves death because it’s so abhorrent to God. The word abortion doesn’t have to used in the Bible for the subject to be covered. Anyone who injures or kills a child in the womb of a woman would pay eye for eye tooth for tooth, life for life, etc. Also it’s understood in the Word of God that life begins at the moment of conception (not the secular/ungodly definition of when life is counted life). Yes the love of money is the root of all evil (the lesson to learn here is that money gives a wrong sense of security. Love for God is more important because money can’t save you on the day of Judgement). Care for the poor, widows, children, disabled and the elderly are good and commendable acts of charity that all professing Christians should perform but it should not be forced upon people to perform directly or indirectly. But more importantly, the abolition of poverty or achieving monetary/social equality for all can never have priority over the Gospel, Salvation, and Sanctification. The Democratic platform for a good while now has been anti religion (primarily against true Christians), anti gospel, and the promoter of immorality & sin.
As for objections to old testament Law, the same God in the new testament is the same God in the old. So whoever objects to them in their PROPER CONTEXT in the old has no right calling himself/herself a Christian.
Unless democratic values change, as a Christian, I could never willingly vote for anyone who’s values directly or indirectly reflect a platform that, once again, promotes immorality & sin, is anti Christian, and is anti Gospel.

  Anthony L. wrote @

1. We are not the judgers, the Bible is. And by the holy fire God on Sodom and Gomorrah, we see that being Gay and/or Lesbians is an affront to Judaism, and as such, Christianity, thereby, a sin. So basically if you support someone who supports these things, you are sinning. i.e., Democrat.

2. In the Bible, it has specific passages where it points out that if there are wars, soldiers fighting for their country are not in fact killing in a way against the Bible’s teachings, but as a service to family and nation. As mentioned, it also makes a very clear passage on the view of Death Penalty. A death penalty is issued when the muderer has taken a life of another. This is by FAR not the same as killing an infant before it has had the chance to live. If a mother cannot stab her five year old son, what gives her the right to take it when the child is still inside her?

3. Nobody is perfect, only Jesus fits that mark. The Republican party as well as the Democratic party. But I know what is the majority’s views on both sides, and unlike most apparently, I actually look at my candidate’s background, see their voting records, and THEN decide. I’m a staunch conservative but if I see that the Democrat is the better candidate, I will vote for them. Forget party line and choose morality my friend. Amen.

  ronpai wrote @

i was raised in a family to vote only for people with a “D” after their name, not an “R”. Poor and raised in liberal washington. If it smells like a democrat…

  everythingafter wrote @

I think it’s becoming an increasing paradox, or atleast perplexing, to vote Republican and be a Christian, with policies in place and proposed that bolster the wealth, cater to corporate America and leaving the uninsured, poor and sick behind.

  Random_acct wrote @

Don’t kid yourself, the Democrats have sold out to big business in a big way.

  daftparrot wrote @

i agree with the sentiments in these comments… i actually wrote an article recently entitled “what would jesus do? vote obama” and tried to back up the arguement with passages from the bible…

i was thinking the same thing as an earlier commenter when i saw the title of this post “how can you be a christian and vote republican”??

  Anthony L. wrote @

You mean the muslim, whose favorite sound is the call to morning prayer by the elder? That is the guy Jesus would vote in? Haha. Wow. Well, let’s see, the Bible is specific about one sin being equal to another sin, correct? So if the majority of the Democratic party support abortion, you in turn would be supporting sin by supporting them. YOU voted them in office, knowing their stand. If not, ignorance is bliss, but you still sinned. So to vote to that party and stay party line is living in perpetual sin, and not repenting. That leads to the lake of fire.

  Alena wrote @

Honestly, sense when did political leaning dictate one’s salvation?? Salvation is about relationship with Jesus Christ, not who you vote for. When I go to the polls, I will be voting for the man I believe is best able to lead this country, provide for the people, and keep us one nation under God. If that man turns out to be a Republican, ok. But if he is a Democrat, so be it! We all have issues that we hold close to our hearts, and YES, issues of morality should play a vital role in our selection of a President – but when it comes down to the wire, our choice of candidate needs to be based on the merits of the man, not on his political party.

  Paul wrote @

I once flipped the question, “What would Jesus do?” on it’s head by asking, “What did Jesus do?” and interestingly enough Jesus turned out to be liberal. He gave plenty to the poor (welfare), was against fighting the Romans (anti-war), forgave prostitutes, and didn’t want to kill anyone (not pro-death penalty). As much as I would like to continue believing that Jesus is a democrat and agrue for that, I have found more times than not that whenever religion gets its hands on something other than religion it turns nasty. When Christianity has its hands on Science we get heated and angered on both sides. When Christianity had its hands on politics, people died (crusades and inquisitions). Politics is a moral dilemma and so I can see why religion and faith would get involved in this realm, versus science where religion isn’t obviously related. But politics and faith are different in the matter of what is best for our country and what is best when it comes to ourselves and in treating others. Goverment is about governing and regulating and maintaining laws for its citizens. I feel as though religion should be viewed as governing our own actions and how we treat others rather than controlling or manipulating how others should believe. Maybe it is true that we really can’t control what we believe, but for the most part we can control where we live.

  Will Entrekin wrote @

I thought religion wasn’t allowed into the government thing. I mean, besides the whole separation of church and state, didn’t Jesus himself say “Render unto Caesar” etc?

  astudent wrote @

How can you be a Christian and vote at all?

The Bible says (Rom 13:1 NIV) Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
(Dan 4:17 NIV) “‘The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men.’
(Dan 4:25 NIV) You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like cattle and be drenched with the dew of heaven. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes. (Dan 4:32 repeats this)

Nowhere in the Bible does it say we should choose our own leaders. God is still sovereign and He still establishes authorities. Democrats and Republicans are only men and those who vote for them are also only men. God only lets us vote so that we can prove we are not qualified. It is our seven times and when we have served ours we will also admit that God is still sovereign. He is not dead nor has He changed.

Anyone that thinks we can improve this country by choosing a different leader should study history. It has never gotten better: only worse. We vote out the bad guy, but his damage remains and we only get another bad guy.

We have put our faith in men. Ourselves to choose, and Democrats and Republicans to put our best interests first, instead of their own. Is everyone blind?

I am not a spring chicken. I have seen many politicians come and go. I have completed my seven times. I must say that “God is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone He wishes” and I ask His forgiveness for ever thinking I should or could choose a leader.

  Leo Kim wrote @

Ah very serious discussion we got here! Concerning the previous comment –

I think the point of the Romans passage is that believers are to submit and even support their government (because it is God’s servant)… This was shocking and outrageous because the government at the time happened to be a rather cruel dictator – and YET a bad government is better than having no government at all…

Our government is a representative government. And so the way we submit to it is by voting for the people who we think will do the best job. And then support those whom the country elects into office…so that whether or not they are the best candidate, they can do the best they are capable of…

The reason why Christians can vote for people who have different faith positions is because of that teaching in Romans – if Nero (and Nebuchadnezzar and the like) can be servants of God, then so can someone who has different views in matters of faith…

What’s interesting is if you’re white and Christian you have to vote Republican. If you’re black and Christian you have to vote Democrat… I’m Asian and Christian so I go vote both ways depending on the candidate and the issues involved…

  r2streu wrote @

Glad I found this discussion. I actually discussed this topic from the Conservative perspective a few weeks back.

There was an interesting comment above about Jesus being a liberal. I disagree whole-heartedly. Jesus taught personal responsibility, and the responsibility of -the individual- to the needy.

I am always astounded that the same Christians who say Jesus wouldn’t want us to push our “morality” on others, in the form of gay marriage bans and outlawing abortion, believe He would be okay with pushing our morality on others by forcing charity through taxation and redistribution. If you are called to give — and as Christian, you ARE — then give. But to use public money is to breach trust. Dig deep into your own pockets — don’t force others to do so.

As for abortion, frankly, anyone who calls themselves human, let alone Christian, and can still be okay with abortion is either truly evil or else wilfully ignorant. In short: a human fetus is alive by any reasonable medical definition, and Human by any reasonable scientific one. Abortion is clearly, therefore, the extinguishing of human life — most often for mere convenience. This alone should preclude a Christian from voting Democrat.

  Mike wrote @

r2streu’s comments are on target. The abortion issue alone is enough to vote for someone besides a Democrat.

Other comments above tout the irony of the right wanting to protect unborn life yet condoning the death penalty. How about considering the opposite: the left thinks it is ok to kill unborn babies yet wants to protect killers receiving their just punishment.

In reality, abortion and the death penalty are two totally separate issues.

  jimfox wrote @

r2streu’s comments over simplify issues in exactly the way Karl Rove wants you to. I could expound, but I don’t think it is necessary. The point is – why are humans born in Iraq worth less than unborn humans. Why is not “truly evil or willfully ignorant” to support a party that has lied to an entire country in order to make their obscenely rich friends even richer – with the end result being the murder of (American and non) thousands of 18 year olds?

  r2streu wrote @

Now who’s oversimplifying — not to mention clearly diverting to avoid answering the abortion issue?

But okay; let’s not dwell on the fact that my abortion argument deals with basic facts, while your Iraq rebuttal deals with unsubstantiated claims, and deal with those:

First, many responsible parties (liberals included) have already admitted that the Bush Administration did not, in fact, lie to the country. The accusation has been made countless times, but never once sufficiently proven (or even -insufficiently- proven, for that matter). Parrotting the line over and over just doesn’t make it so.

Second, regardless of how the war in Iraq was entered, the simple fact is, we’re there now. And, in spite of what some individuals would have you believe, we are, in fact, winning. Winning with a strategy that should have been implemented much sooner, but winning nonetheless. A retreat now would be foolish, would cost the Iraqi lives you agree are worthwhile, and, yes, embolden our enemies. If you’re as concerned about human life as you claim, the only course is victory. Regardless of whether or not Iraq was a legitimate front in the war against the Islamic Jyhadists who want to kill us, it is clearly one now.

How, exactly, does leaving before the job is done, thereby leaving countless Iraqis to die in what will surely become a genocidal civil war, help preserve life?

  goodtimepolitics wrote @

Why list poor people as Liberals, or Liberals as poor? Obama is worth 4.2 million dollars…poor? Most politicians are rich and could care less about the poor, they’re worried about their money not yours be it democrats or republicans! Think about it!

  Mike wrote @

Bush didn’t lie. He relied on the intelligence he received. Don’t forget that he was cleaning up messes left by his predecessor.

An evil dictator has been overthrown and punished. 50 million Iraqis are liberated.

  Denny wrote @

Great discussion. I have been struggling with this issue for quite some time. I am a Christian an a conservative Republican. I have been trying to understand the thinking of conservative Christians (those who hold to a classical conservative understanding of Scripture) who are liberals. (I do not mean this statement to a slander at all. I had plenty of professors at seminary who are very conservative Christians but vote liberal. We just never got into political discussions in class.)

With Paul’s comment above, I think there is a misunderstanding between personal giving, i.e. Jesus and the disciples giving to the poor, and the government mandating a person to give to the government and the allow the government to allocate those resources to whoever they deem fit. Jesus did not give welfare; it is more like charitable giving, while welfare is from the government. More over, Paul makes it pretty clear that those who don’t work should not eat, thus emphasizing personal responsibilities and work. Certainly there is nothing wrong with the government stepping in to help in times of crisis but the current system traps the poor in an endless cycle of poverty and dependence on government. The welfare check may change their circumstances in the short run but has done very little to help people in the long run.

As for the taxation issue, when the tax rate is lower, there is more money for individual to spend and in the case of businesses they have more money to invest in their business and hire more people to work, thus creating jobs. We can certainly raise the tax rate on the “rich” but the net result will be a loss of jobs and a slow economy, like that of Western Europe (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/12/04/low_jobless_rate_wont_cheer_up_europe/) They are happy over a jobless are of 7.9% (and we are going nuts here around 5%!)

All these things aside, the main reason why I vote conservative is because of abortion and homosexuality. Regarding abortion, Obama defended his vote against a measure to protect a baby born alive after a botched abortion (http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2008/02/obama-and-infan.html). This is a baby born alive. Yet Obama would not vote for a law to protect the child. He argue that it is the woman’s right to choose but not after the baby is born?!?! This alone cause me to not vote for him or Democratic.

As for homosexuality, I am not against homosexual or wish them harm. But with homosexual marriage legal in several states, there have been increasing pressure for churches and religious orgainzations to not just tolerate homosexuality and marriage but to endorse it (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340). There are two components to solve this. First there is a political components, to define marriage to be only between a man and a woman nationally. Hence we need conservative politicians and, unfortunately, supreme court judges. (The court was never meant to legislate but that is the environment we live in.) Second, churches have to do their job and evangelize, etc.

Denny

  Alex wrote @

r2streu:
It does matter how we got into Iraq. Did the President lie? Well, if you view him and every one in his cabinet as honest and trustworthy, yes, he did not lie. First, it was about harboring al-qaeda terrorists, then it was about WMD’s, then it was about bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. Of course that’s not lying.

I also cannot comprehend why you think we are “winning” in Iraq. We continue to have violent civil war between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims, we continue to have American troops killed by the Mahdi Army, Iraqi civilians continue to flock towards Muqtada Al-Sadr. Remember, that the anti-American insurgency in Iraq was largely caused by the actions of one American. No, not Bush. I’m talking about the poorly qualified, president appointed Paul Bremer who disbanded the Iraqi army at the start of the war, and ordered the De-Ba’thification of the Iraqi civil service.
Should we just leave Iraq and leave no trace of ourselves there? Hell, no. I hope we can look back at Afghanistan and learn from our mistakes. We helped them defeat the then Soviet Union and we just left. No funding for reconstruction, no nothing. We just left. Then look what happened. The Taliban.
However, I fail to see how keeping a large military force in Iraq, some who do not care to be there and lack any cultural sensitivity whatsoever, is going to accomplish anything. These people are turning to extremism and yes, some physical force needs to be taken, but remember why these extremist groups were created in the first place and who helped create them.

—-
I think another perspective needs to be introduced into the abortion topic. Alot of people seem to think that pro-abortion laws are some sort of “get out of jail free cards” for “murderers.” Putting anti-abortion laws into place isn’t going to stop abortions. Just look back in American history when we did have them in place. One of the reason’s why pro-abortion laws exist, is so that those, despite whether there is an anti-abortion law in place or not, who do decide to get an abortion can do so safely instead of going to some seedy apartment where a so called professional uses a wire clothes hanger to perform the operation and endanger both lives.

I hope you’re not thinking, “well, if she’s having an abortion she deserves to die” like my conservative relative once said to me. What happened to compassion, salvation, redemption? A second chance?

On the abortion issue, I’ve heard many Christians are against it solely on the basis that it is murder and so on. But I realize that nobody can say what they exactly feel until it hits them personally. It came as a surprise to me that when a really close relative of mine – who is still somewhat of a teenager, not yet fit to become a mother – became pregnant, her ultra-conservative Christian parents recommended that she get an abortion.
_________
Despite my rambling about these “fringe” topics, I fail to see why they are in the spotlight all the time. There are, I think more important, pressing matters concerning our faith right now.

  fdi150 wrote @

“I think another perspective needs to be introduced into the abortion topic. Alot of people seem to think that pro-abortion laws are some sort of “get out of jail free cards” for “murderers.” Putting anti-abortion laws into place isn’t going to stop abortions. Just look back in American history when we did have them in place. One of the reason’s why pro-abortion laws exist, is so that those, despite whether there is an anti-abortion law in place or not, who do decide to get an abortion can do so safely instead of going to some seedy apartment where a so called professional uses a wire clothes hanger to perform the operation and endanger both lives.”

So, because there are people that, despite the law or any inherrent danger, will proceed with such behaviour as to possibly or inevitably produce harm to themselves or others, we, as a society, should just allow it anyways? So how does this thinking impact such areas as drug abuse, DUI, murder, stealing or even cheating (as in taxes, marriages or any other socially impacting activity)? Man is depraved from the Fall to modern times. Allowance for sin without consequence only encourages multiplicity of that sin, and an abhorrance for God’s morals. Laws will not completely diminish sinful behavior, but it does help curtail it. Case in point, punishing a child when a child does wrong.

  Alex wrote @

To answer Wayne’s original question:
Yes, you can be Christian and vote Dem.
No, you are not engaging in heresy.
No, you do not automatically become a liberal Christian.

  ronpai wrote @

Where is Wayne in all of this discussion?

  Wayne Park wrote @

I’ve been watching it from the sidelines morph into another beast :)

  r2streu wrote @

Alex: To go point-by-point… the Administration has always said the war was about -all- of those things — and the CIA’s and other intelligence reports said we were justified. If blame has to be cast for getting it wrong, it should be remembered that, though the buck rightly stops with the President, he relies on our intelligence agencies to get it right. By the way, I never said it didn’t matter how we got into Iraq — just that it’s beside the point regarding what happens next.

I think we’re winning in Iraq because we are. People far more qualified to judge that than you or I will ever be are saying the surge is working; the strategy is winning. It’s not a magical or instant sort of thing. Yes, people are still dying — that doesn’t negate the fact that we’re winning. If a soccer team is up 10-3 and the opposition scores a goal, would you say the team with 10 is no longer winning? Of course not. That would be dumb.

I agree about leaving a small force in Iraq. As does John McCain. In spite of MoveOn.org’s idiotic and spurious ads, no Republican wants another hundred years of war — nor would we want to leave a large occupation force. Just enough of a presence to help keep the peace when necessary, until such time that we either aren’t needed, or it is no longer necessary for national interests.

On abortion: you haven’t exactly presented a new argument here, and it’s just as pointless an argument now as it always has been. More so, actually.
First, saying “if we don’t keep abortion ‘safe and legal’, girls will just do it anyway in back alleys, and possibly die” is akin, frankly, to saying, “well, if we don’t legalize personal theft, muggers will be forced to carry out their robberies in dark, secluded places where their lives may be in danger.” Sorry, “they’ll do it anyway” doesn’t wash. If abortion is murder, as I believe it is, there is no way to justify making it easier on somebody to commit it.

Second, the back alley argument just doesn’t take culture into account, and it should. The pre-Roe USA took a much harder line on teen and unmarried pregancy than the one in which we live now. There was a stigma attached to single pregnancy that just isn’t there now. Look at this situation in MA. These 18 girls aren’t being ostrecized or stigmatized. They’re frigging celebrities. Five-ten years from now they’ll be considered heroes of some idiotic revolution. Not only that, but with sexual promiscuity pretty much a foregone conclusion in many high schools, with abortion no longer an option, parents will pretty much wind up putting their kids on birth control in greater numbers. In short, versus Pre-Roe, a Post-Roe USA will see FAR fewer (if any, frankly) ‘back-alley’ abortions, even if it is illegal.

WAYNE: Yes, I suppose abortion isn’t a “central battle” to our faith. Why should Christians care about the wholesale slaughter of innocent people? Come to think of it, Hitler’s slaughter of the Jews didn’t really concern Christians, on a ‘theological’ level either. Maybe we’d have done better to just leave that whole mess alone, as well.

  Wayne Park wrote @

actually, hitler’s actions did concern German Christians like Barth and Bonhoeffer. But it was the German nationalist Church who sided with Hitler. Don’t forget that we Christians are just as guilty when we idolize nation over God.

I knew my “central battle” comment would get some slack. It’s a hard issue. I believe in life at conception w/o a doubt. But many in our pluralistic society don’t. The question is, can we enforce our morality over others who don’t share the same propositions? That’s a difficult question, because if we don’t we become accessory to murder which seems to be precisely the pro-life argument. But I just have a difficulty marrying the idea of morality with legislation. Is that the answer?

I keep thinking back to the first century response of Christians concerning abortion: babies were “aborted” by being birthed and then left to die by exposure on garbage dumps. Christians regularly scoured these dumps and took the babies home. I wonder if this too would be the best modern-day Christian response to abortion?

good to have u stoppin by r2streu…

  John wrote @

Wayne, this issue has troubled me greatly. I won’t go into great detail on my thoughts, but I would not consider myself a Democrat or a Repulican. There are many issues the Republicans typically support that I do not, but the issue of abortion is one that I cannot condone. Personally, I like Obama and for a time was leaning toward voting for him should he win the nomination.

However, in the end, I cannot support his stance on abortion. I wrote an email to Obama on this issue some time ago. The email is too long to share in this comment, but the ultimate position is that outlawing abortion is not imposing a specific people group’s morality, but upholding a common morality and desire to protect the most innocent and vulnerable people in our midst.

I do like your suggestion about Christians rescuing children who might otherwise be aborted. I think Mother Teresa once said that she would take all babies so that none might be aborted…or something along those lines. Personally, I think this battle needs to be fought both on the legal front and in the hearts and minds of the people of this country.

  r2streu wrote @

Wayne: Thanks, I may do so more often. I enjoy it when I find somebody with whom I disagree on certain fundamentals, but argues like a rational, intelligent adult.

I don’t know that outlawing abortion can be considered an imposition of morality, any more than outlawing murder — especially if it -is- murder. And I think when you look at it from a scientifically responsible and intellectually honest perspective, you are forced to admit that abortion is the extinguishing of human life (read: murder).

I think you’re right about this, though: The Church hasn’t done nearly enough on the adoption level. The members of the Church at large have become far too interested in personal convenience, rather than understanding that following Christ is about taking up a very, very uncomfortable cross.

  Wayne Park wrote @

john & r2streu: even the current dialogue is shaping the way I view things. I guess that’s good blogging.

  Russ wrote @

This entry is directed to Christians.

I think both parties have serious flaws—news flash folks, we live in a sinful, fallen world. What do you expect? I don’t think your salvation is at stake if you vote Democrat. However, with that said, it comes down to the lesser of two evils. The comment that Jesus was liberal is absolutely preposterous. Yes he did lay down his life for the poor and indigent, but you are over looking the huge gaffe in moral values the Democrats uphold that Christ insists we live. Christ cared less about political views and more about caring for others and living for Him absolutely.

If you read the platform scope of both parties, you’ll find fault in both, politically speaking. But as a Christian I have serious problems with a party that supports one of the largest legal institutions in this country that is unashamedly anti-Christian—the ACLU. The Dem party may not monetarily support them directly, but they do the two-step on every issue. The ACLU IS the Democratic party. While I struggle with the idea of war and feeding big corporate America as a believer, I have a serious problem when a political party takes a strong position to attack Christian values in this country. Moreover, while they fight to remove long standing values that are dear to Christians, they in turn jam their views down my throat and are shocked that I don’t accept it with glee; ie, global warming, homosexuality. I don’t expect America to believe Christ, I’d like to, but even Christ said that many will reject Him. But some values are just common sense.

If you are a Christian, I think it is healthy to not agree with many issues on either side. Jesus Christ was perfect and neither party is. But when it comes to you and your values (not mentioning the fact that this country was founded on Christian principles) being rejected, no, hated, you might be voting for the wrong party. You can go on and on about war, gun rights, capital punishment and how the rich get richer, but these are capsules of issues that do not blatantly go upstream to your faith. The big picture views of the Democratic party is stereotypically anti Christian.

Other notes and ramblings: less government, less debt, constitutional rule not propaganda rule is always better for the people. Fetus’ have no choice, criminals do and know the consequences. Our military is still volunteer last time I checked and we haven’t had a draft since Vietnam. Some how we are still enlisting people in spite of the opposing views of the war. The poor will not work if they feel they are always entitled to hand outs. Assistance yes, perpetual hand outs with no resposiblity, NO. Tax redistribution is a ridiculous notion that the even the Soviets held. If I make 10k a year or 100k a year, 8% tax is different for both, that’s balanced and fair. Burdening the wealthy with most of the taxes will always hurt the economy, which in turn hurts the poor even more. Universal healthcare is a horrible idea and will be irreversible if it’s put in place. Hello, socialism has never worked, ever. Speaking of, all this “help the poor” and you want the Dems who are very socialistically leaning to lead us. Look at the poor in China….LOL, yea let’s go there. And one we probably all agree on, the IRS should go away to the flat tax system. Everyone pays, and there are NO loops holes for the rich.

How great would it be that the Republicans cared for the poor as the Democrats did and the Democrats showed some moral compass to social issues as the Republicans support. Third party…the Demlicans.

  Denny wrote @

Hello Wayne,
Could you briefly explain your positions on spending and civil and social matters? I am curious as to why you would be more aligned with the Democrats than with Republicans. Thanks.

Denny

  Paul wrote @

I would like to clear something up. In my previous comment I said, and I quote, “…interestingly enough Jesus turned out to be liberal…As much as I would like to continue believing that Jesus is a democrat and agrue for that…whenever religion gets its hands on something other than religion it turns nasty.” I did not say Jesus was “A” liberal or was “A” democrat. Being a liberal and being liberal are two totally distinct concepts. Also, I said, as much as I would like to argue that he was/is a democrat, I didn’t and I still won’t. Please, if you are going to refer to my comment, refer to it in the correct way. I would prefer that religion and politics were the furthest things apart.

As for welfare, I am not sure how I make it pretty clear that I believe, “Those who don’t work should not eat”. I never mentioned my views on welfare and am actually not sure how I feel about welfare. However, I do believe that giving money to the poor is somewhat closely linked to welfare, unless my definition of welfare is a little skewed.

  Russ wrote @

Duly noted Paul. And just so you know, my response was not really directed at you. I’ve had friends say the same. I just happened to glance at your mention of it and it made me think of it.

I am just struggling with this whole issue. Even though it does seem like a no brainer for me, I’m finding it’s not as absolute as I thought. But I still feel very strongly that the more we acquiesce to the Democratic ideals, we will watch the persecution of Christian values on a whole new level. It won’t surprise me considering what the book of Revelation says about the end times, we will be persecuted beyond what we know now for our faith.

Thought you all would enjoy these great quotes by President Lincoln and Madison
“We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!” (Abraham Lincoln, A Proclamation “to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.”)

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government — far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” (James Madison, Russ Walton, Biblical Principles of Importance to Godly Christians [New Hampshire: Plymouth Foundation, 1984], p. 361)

There are too numerous to count of these quotes commenting on what will eventually happen to this country if we continue to remove God from our Government.

  Russ wrote @

Hello Wayne,

In researching this topic, one regular argument made by those who are Christians and voting Democrat, I noticed they mention the same argument over and over—”Republicans don’t take care of the poor, this is why I vote Democrat”. At first, I agreed with this notion that the Dems do more for the poor. Albeit how effective things like welfare really are with the poor are always arguable. But the more I read what scripture said about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked the more I saw a HUGE over sight in this argument. It became very clear to me that Christ has charged the CHURCH and the individual believer with this, NOT the government. It’s OUR responsibility. Go back and read it for yourself. Read it in context of who Christ is talking to. It will open your eyes.

The reason this issue is so passionate is most people base the assertion that the government is to take care of the poor is two fold: one, they (believers) don’t want to or don’t do it themselves, so they pass the buck to Uncle Sam; two, it’s all emotions and very little logic, can’t have just one or the other, they must go hand in hand.

This is a common thread that the Dems take care of the poor. You can trust me on this, it’s a misconception let alone not the governments responsibility. And remember, the point I’m making is directed toward Christians who vote Democrat because of this issue. So I’m not saying that the poor should not be taken care of, I’m just saying that the poor should be addressed by fellow citizens, not the gov’t.

And seriously, lets put away ALL resistance to the Dems helping the poor and let the gates fly open to every policy that’s in their book and you know what we become, a socialist nation. Look at how China takes care of their poor. It’s laughable. Just think about it.

A socialistic government will never work with sinful man at it’s helm, ever.

  Russ wrote @

Here’s my point on voting Democrat as a Christian. Sorry so long.

Neither party is flawless, this is for certain. But if you were to compare party platforms alone, not what any particular candidate says he/she will do or what incumbents have done. Just look at their ideology. As a believer, our focus rests on what God commands us to do and how that is reflective in who we choose to be our leader. Makes me think of when the Israelites got impatient with God and chose to worship a golden calf. They made the decision based on what they thought was best rather than be obedient to God. So when it comes to political issues, it seems to boil down to hard biblical instructions that God has asked Christians to not waiver on.

For certain, it’s not heresy or a loss of your salvation if you vote Democrat—it’s not as absolute as I thought, but still very troubling. Few political issues are truly spiritual issues. As an example, personally, I prefer lower taxes. The Bible does not endorse low taxes, all it says is that we are to pay our taxes honestly (Romans 13:6-7; Matthew 22:15-21). Taxes, and many other issues (social security, universal healthcare, education funding, prescription drugs, etc.) are not spiritual issues the Bible specifically addresses. As a result, Christians can in good conscience have disagreements on these issues.

An issue the Bible most definitely “takes sides” on is abortion. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He knits us in the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God’s active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty of someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as the penalty for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb as just as much of a human being as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6). Therefore, I believe Christians should strongly support candidates who are pro-life.

Another issue which is most definitely Biblical is the issue of gay marriage. The Bible condemns homosexuality in the strongest terms possible (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Gay marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage that God created to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:22-24). Endorsing gay marriage or even civil unions is basically giving “approval” of a lifestyle choice the Bible condemns as immoral and unnatural. Gay marriage, then, is an issue Christians must consider when they evaluate a candidate.

The Bible teaches that a leader in the church should be a godly, moral, ethical person (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). I believe this should apply to political leaders as well. If a politician is going to make wise, God-honoring decisions, he or she must have a basic morality on which to base the decisions they are going to have to make. So, if there is a clear moral distinction between candidates, I believe it is our responsibility to choose the more moral, honest, and ethical of the candidates.

In the end though, no matter who is in office, whether we voted for them or not, whether they are of the political party we prefer or not – the Bible commands us to respect and honor them (1 Peter 2:13-17; Romans 13:1-7). We should also be praying for those placed in authority over us (Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:17). We do not have to agree with them, or even like them – we do have to honor and respect them. Politics is always going to be a difficult issue for Christians. We are in this world, but are not to be of this world (1 John 2:15). We can be involved in politics, but we should not be obsessed with politics. Ultimately, we are to be heavenly minded, more concerned with the things of God than the things of this world (Colossians 3:1-2). As believers in Jesus Christ, we are all members of the same political party – monarchists who are waiting for their King to return (Revelation 19:11-16).

When we go into the voting booth, we cannot separate our faith from our politics. As heated as issues can be, it still does not override the biblical values we are to uphold.

Food for thought.

  Wayne Park wrote @

But I don’t think it’s so much that we’re shifting the responsibility of caring for the poor onto the gov’t (and away from the church) but that (Republican) gov’t policies systemically restrict social progress and reform for the lower classes. Tax breaks for the rich, big business, etc – sure these things don’t stop the church, but don’t you think they might impede progress and social reform?

I might agree with the moral issues you’ve raised. But going back a few comments, it’s problematic to marry morality w/legislation in a pluralistic culture. Sure we might be agreed on these things, but we are a minority that believes this. Isn’t lobbying our morals in gov’t doing precisely what you say we shouldn’t? Putting our trust in Caesar?

I’m suggesting that perhaps legislation is not the answer for the moral reform we’re seeking on a nat’l level…

Lastly, the reference to Romans 13 is like a broken record I hear over and over again. No offense, Russ, but you need some new material. To take that verse and use it to advance a political agenda is somewhat self-serving, and I hear many Christians using it (out of context) as ammunition:

http://waynepark.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/the-problem-with-submitting-to-authorities/

nonetheless, you’re bringing your A-game to the table Russ, and you argue cogently and intelligently. We need more bloggers/commenters like u.

  alex wrote @

Wow, this post is alive and kicking

r2streu, thanks for the input.

First, I don’t think I’ll tackle the Iraq issue. Reason being, many different people come from different walks of life and have different experiences which shape certain beliefs that become strengthened within oneself over a period of time. I believe we both have very different base/foundational beliefs and views about the government that will make it hard to convince each other otherwise.

(On abortion: Just for clarification, I wasn’t presenting a new argument. Just introducing one that wasn’t talked about in the replies to this post. )
On abortion, I think it’s the same. We both have very different base beliefs on which we make our arguments. If you believe it is murder and that laws that prohibit abortion should be placed and enforced on everyone whether they believe in a religion that is against it or not, then what can I say. I strongly would prefer that a woman not get an abortion. However, like you, I strongly believe in something. That something being that whatever we believe should not be forced upon others. It’s unfortunate that not everyone believes life begins at conception or that not everyone is a follower of Christ.

That young pregnant teen relative I told you about? When she showed me her ultrasound pictures, I was devastated to think that the fetus I saw that would eventually become a beautiful child would be destroyed. Fortunately, she decided against her parents insistence that she get an abortion. Unfortunately her relationship with her family has been severed. Yet, she is not fit to become a mother, is still childish, has no financial stability, etc. When asked, what her plan was, she said nothing. By saying nothing, she was essentially saying, “Mom, you take care of it.” Your response to this may be, “Well give it up for adoption!” It really isn’t that easy.
Abortion is one of those topics that I think nobody has a definite position on. They think they do, but they don’t. Men shouldn’t even have a position on it. I think it is extremely easy for us to sit down and look at a topic like abortion and just base our create our opinions on the topic using the most idealistic of examples that we create in our own heads. When it comes to reality, it’s not that easy.

What if your significant other was raped? Sure, since we’re Christians, it’s really easy for us to say, “Well, it’s going to be hard, and as Christians we have to take up the struggle, but golly gee I’m going to raise and love this kid that isn’t mine. That’s what Jesus would have done and that’s what I’m going to do now.” But in that MOMENT, is that what what your significant other would want? Is that what you would want? I’m not saying that you shouldn’t raise a child from rape, I’m challenging the assumption that we’re determined how we’re going to respond before it even happens, or ever happns. Everybody seems to be under the delusion that we know how we’re going to respond to said situations, but when it comes down to that moment….

If you re-read my thoughts on abortion, I never was making a back-alley argument. I was saying, because there are going to be people having abortions even when anti-abortion laws are in place, make it safe and legal. Not, as you put it, make it safe and legal because girls are going to do it anyway. If you read carefully, there is a difference.

Second, there is still very much a stigma attached to teen pregnancy. Maybe I would agree with you if 20+ high school girls were becoming pregnant natiowide but this is just a small city in Massachusetts and they’re only “celebrities” (not really, I think most everyone who has heard that report is scoffing in disgust) because all media outlets have focused on such a sensational story. True that with contraceptives and birth control there has been a decrease in pregnancies but contraceptives and birth control pills aren’t magical tonics that work 100% of the time.

I think these issues are important, but I think in terms of being and knowing what it means to be a follower of Christ, if these issues become banner issues, where everything that you talk about are said topics, then I think that is a problem.

  Ron wrote @

Can you vote democrat, of course. Do you have the right to do so? Of course. Do you have the right to sin, Absolutely. For those of you who think that it does not matter…..Just let me know how it goes on The Day of Judgement when you attempt to exlplain to God why you thought it was okay to support Abortion (Oops, I mean Murder), Partial-Birth Abortion ( This one I am absolutely speechless about), Homosexuality, and the list could go on and on…. But here is an interesting scripture 2 John 1:10-11 “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” To me it is this simple, DID GOD CONSULT WITH YOU WHEN HE CREATED THE WORLD? He didn’t with me either! Do you want God to be a part of your plan or do you want to be a part of God’s plan!! I think this is a good subquestion to the question here.

  Wayne Park wrote @

Any takers for brother Ron’s comment?

  Paul wrote @

Thanks Wayne, I’ll take this.

I believe that if God created us to simply and blindly follow Him, He wouldn’t have given us a choice, or reason, or a mind to think thoughts with. He didn’t consult with me when He created the world, but He did give me an open invitation to believe in Him and a mind to think thoughts with, and how to imagine Him. God gave us many opportunities for us to understand Him, yet we still do not understand Him completely, if we did, we wouldn’t have so many different denominations within one belief system.

The truth, and the underlining factor that plays a huge role in your subquestion, is that we don’t fully know what God’s plan/s are. We’re given a mind to think about what His plans and intentions may be, but until we do fully understand, we’re given the chance and opportunity to friendly debate and argue over it.

[…] Can You Be A Christian And Vote Democrat, Part Deux 22 08 2008 Part II of a previous post… is galvanized by my readings in […]

  elderj wrote @

Geez Wayne… you opened a can of worms on this one. For the record, yes you can be Christian and vote Democrat, as I have most of my life. However, I have done so because I know (being in a pretty red state) that my vote doesn’t matter much, at least not in presidential contests and also that the Democrats in my neck of the woods tend to be rather conservative on social policy issues. In these parts the big divisions between parties tend to be on issues like education spending and tax policy.

However, I think we are naive or at least have been co-opted by a particularly pernicious way of thinking when we say that morality cannot or should not be legislated. Law is a codification of public morality; it always has a moral dimension to it. Belief in the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy is a moral position that has been codified into law, and thus informs the citizenry that abortion is, at least publicly speaking, an acceptable moral act. Likewise laws that have criminalized racial discrimination stem from the belief that discrimination based on race is immoral. So we are always and ever legislating morality, it is only a question of whose morality is being legislated.

[…] with all of the Scripture smackdowns people deliver when even asking a simple question such as, Can you be a Christian and vote Democratic? Or, if you have the stomach for it, follow the trail of vitriol in the comments section over at […]

  Gary wrote @

This is in response to “Johnny”. While I’m not good at quoting verses either, I do have a little better handle on the Scriptures than you do, apparently. We do need to be tolerant of people who are different (homosexuals, Muslims, Democrats [kidding!], etc.) but we are not to condone what they do when they violate His Word. In regards to the death penalty and fighting wars yet being pro-life, there is no contradiction. While we no longer live under the “law”, we’re still supposed to obey them. The death penalty does NOT violate that because it is not murder, but rather the carrying out of justice or punishment to the murderer. Do you see fighting a war to stop terrorists from killing our civilians as murder? I don’t, it’s a matter of self-defense. As for your comment on knowing that we’re not supposed to judge others, if I take it the way it sounds, you need to read your Bible in context. That passage you’re probably referring to (that’s often misquoted by non-believers to Christians) is talking about the final judgment, which is God’s, not ours. However, we are to keep people accountable, like saying “Do you really think you should be doing that?” That’s not judging. What will probably help the most is to study the Scriptures verse by verse (expository studying) through an entire book at a time, keeping in mind the context. Oftentimes, I’ve heard pastors teaching on something by pulling a verse from here and a verse from there to make their point; more often than not, that’s not what the verse was saying. It’s important for us to be accurate in what the Bible is saying; it’s all too easy to make the Bible say whatever we want it to say if we take things out of context.

When I first was saved years ago, I was still a Democrat; my pastor jokingly told me that I can’t be a Democrat and a Christian at the same time. I remained a Democrat for a few more years though voting for a few Republicans along the way because I voted for the person and what they stood for rather than what party they belonged to (especially here where many run as Democrats just to make it easier to be elected; Hawaii is known as a Democratic stronghold and you won’t get elected much if you’re not a Democrat). Anyway, after some time I realized that the Democratic party was continuing to get more and more liberal and no longer could I remain a “democrat”. Heck, even my unbelieving brother who was very liberal is now considering becoming a Republican because he says that the Dems are ultra-left now. Whatever happened to the old Democratic party that used to care about the working middle and lower middle class?

With the lower tax rates and child tax credits from the Republicans (and the proposed higher taxes and spending from the Democrats) it seems like the parties have reversed roles! It’s because of the Republicans’ tax cuts and credits that my family can own our own home (actually we’re paying a mortgage, but at least we can do that now). Without that tax cut & credits, we wouldn’t be able to own our home. In fact, if Obama and company gets their way and ends the Bush tax cuts/credits, and raise taxes like I know they will, we won’t be able to make the mortgage payments and probably lose our home. I hope it won’t come to that.

  icarus wrote @

After eight years of lies and deceit, the queston should be HOW CAN A CHRISTIAN VOTE REPUBLICAN, without being a hypocrite.

These hypocrites bring up the abortion issue, as a reason to vote against the Democrats, then turn around and tell you, they are for the death penalty.

These are the same hypocrites that found our Saviour guilty and had him crucified two thousand years ago.

  Wayne Park wrote @

@Icarus. Good point.
To be fair, I post the converse as well:
How can you be a Christian and vote Republican?

  Bassfisherman00 wrote @

How can you be a Christian and vote Republican?

Well for one if you read the Bible, it wasn’t anti-war or against the death penalty. God used war several times. Also the bible does not talk against the death penalty. Romans 13:4 seems to be supporting Capital Punishment actually.

And for abortion thats murder. The bible is really clear about abortion. Jeremiah 1:5 is the clearest of all. I’ve heard Christian’s say its ok for abortion only if rape was involved. Yet its not that baby’s fault, so why kill it? Also maybe people being unfit mothers due to early age. Well there are orphanages, and who is to say God can’t give the girl the strength she needs to be a mother.

Well as for homosexuality, the bible is clear on that as well. Sodom and Gomorrah is prime example that God is serious in dealing with this issue. So why should we encourage homosexuality with accepting Gay marriages. The more tolerance that we show to homosexuality the more homosexuality you’ll see. Cleary not a wise choice and also your not born gay.

My beliefs are the main reason I vote and who I vote for. So as the topic states why vote democratic?

  Bassfisherman00 wrote @

I see now some people have already made these points and used these scriptures. As one person said, he can’t count how many times he has heard Romans 13. But i think you still need to hear it a few more times at least ;)

  Wayne Park wrote @

@Bass: while I hear what you are saying i can’t say how it peeves me to hear Romans 13 used yet again by another Christian attempting to protect the status quo. Tell me, if Obama were elected president, would you still go around parroting that text?

It’s a great way of picking and choosing wut you like to serve your own purposes, a verse here a verse there and so supports your political agenda. It’s terrible Bible study. Because if you look at that verse in it’s broader historical context that is exactly what Christians did not do. No, they did NOT bow to Caesar, they engaged in civil disobedience. It’s totally disingenuous for u to use Scripture like that.

Having said that you are entitled to your beliefs but (pls) don’t tell people to submit to Republican politics because of your reading of Romans 13. That’s totally self-serving. I’ll leave it at that.

Any takers from here out for brother Bass’ comments?

btw, your argument for “God using war” is just another reason why I’m completely terrified of Scripture in the wrong hands.

  Brother Bass wrote @

By Obama being president would I support the death penalty? Is that what your asking? If so yes, the bible also says to respect and honor who ever is in authority as well if thats what your getting at.

Also Roman Emperors sometimes were worshipped like a God. The bible you know talks about obeying the law and such, and the law might have been bow down to him. However you got to know where priorities lie. Your relationship with God is before, obeying laws of your Goverment. So if that law hurts that relationship then the right choice is to disobey that law. This just an example, im not thinking this would happen, but if Obama made the law to bow down to him and worship him, the right choice would to be disobeying it. Get what im saying?

Also I don’t remember telling anyone to submit to Republican.

Did God not use war? and no i don’t think raging war on every living thing is right, just incase for some odd reason that crossed your mind. God wasn’t anti war but he isn’t for senseless war ethier.

  Craig wrote @

Wayne,

Maybe you could clarify your statement about “God using war” as “Scripture in the wrong hands?” It’s very clear in Scripture that war was often a command given by God to his people, and that in the last days, Christ himself will go to war with the nations who oppose Israel and will kill, yes kill them with a sword out of his mouth. Also, the wisest man to ever live, King Solomon, said there is a time for peace and also for war. Nobody likes war, and certainly many wars that have been waged on this planet were right or justified, but, according to Scripture, there is a time and place for it and even God himself has and will ordain it. It would be naive to believe otherwise.

  Wayne Park wrote @

Craig: thanx for the good question.
I’ll mention a few thoughts in brief and then step aside to allow other perspectives to chime in.

My first thought is this: Who is Israel? Is it the geo-political Israel as we know it or is it the covenant people of God who are both Jew and Greek (Gal 3:28). If your reading of the Bible says it is the prior then you’re probably a proponent for war with Palestine and Muslims and any of the Arab persuasion. I can’t hold to that outcome because I believe God redeems even the “worst of sinners” and even those who persecute Christians, case in point, Paul.

On the other hand, if Israel comes to mean the people of God including Jew AND Gentile, then warring against the enemy of Israel might mean something more along the lines of warring against Satan and evil and not necessarily an actual modern-day nation-state. In some cases I might concede that apocalyptic literature was written with some particular empire in mind, i.e. Rome, Babylon, Assyria. But by and large Biblical scholarship agrees that apocalyptic texts (which you are referring to) does NOT speak of any modern-day nation state as the “enemy of Israel”.

In other words I don’t think the Biblical author’s intentions were to mandate war 2000 yrs later and it is a gross mistake to interpret it as so. It’s in fact a dying breed of theological thinking called dispensationalism which holds to the ideas you’ve proposed, namely God warring against Israel’s enemies, and so on and so forth. The alternative? Understanding Scripture as Covenant, as opposed to “dispensations” which potentially alters our view of war, particularly as the subject is framed in the Middle East. But I digress. Covenant theology is a whole other discussion you can find here:

http://waynepark.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/bringing-jesus-back/

In the end I agree, God sovereignly ordains war, but not on the grounds you have woefully suggested. The interpretations you suggest are problematic at best and not enough to build an eschatalogical framework upon. In other words, your exegesis is completely off (and this coming from a theologically conservative & reformed view)

Alas, I’ve already said a mouthful and needn’t say more! Anyone else care to offer their 2 cents? Agree? Disagree? And pls do so on intelligent grounds, no trollers here thinking they have an injunction from God to be the next internet Jeremiah.

  Craig wrote @

Wayne,

Well, if interpreting Scripture literally is a gross error, then I feel I am in pretty good company. To suggest my interpretations are “problematic at best and not enough to build an eschatalogical framework upon” is both arrogant and erroneous. There are a great deal of prominent and respected theologians, both past and present, who hold the same views as I do, and you know it.

Whether Israel today is a nation or a spiritual group does not negate the truths I’ve outlined in my earlier email. God certainly did defend the nation of Israel by the sword, and to say He doesn’t today b/c Israel is no longer a nation but a spiritual group……isn’t that just dispensationalism cloaked in your “covenant theology?” You are basically saying God deals with His people differently today than He did back then—because His people are different today than they were back then. We can’t defend Israel today because Israel is not Israel…that’s what I’m hearing.

I came to this site just searching around the web, wondering why Christians would vote for a man who sat under the teaching of Jeremiah Wright, who supports abortion and post birth murder, and who claims to be a Christian yet says Christ is not the only way to the Father. You have answered my question. To you, Scripture, at least in part (or all?) is allegory, and as such, you can sacrifice the moral commandments of God’s word at the altar of the social gospel, which I believe is your well intentioned but erroneous application of the Sermon on the Mount to government policies and programs.

When you get to pick and choose which Scripture is allegory, you open yourself up to the whole spiritualization can of worms that I’m not interested in digging through. It’s much easier, and rational, to take Scripture literally, as I’m pretty certain Paul and heck, even Christ himself did.

Craig

  Wayne Park wrote @

Craig:
thanx for your informed response.

To clarify
1. re: dispensationalism. I wonder who you refer to as prominent / respected theologian? John Hagee? Pat Robertson? John Nelson Darby?

2. literal interpret. You’re jumping to a misinformed conclusion if you think I read my Bible as allegory! Ha! That’s funny because oftentimes fundamentalists think thinking Christians are immediately liberal. Students of Scripture must not only sit on the Bible, but also sit under it. While I am for the inerrancy of Scripture I think each text must be read in its’ genre. You can’t cite some of the apocalyptic or poetic OT texts as prescriptive or literal because they were not meant to be so. Having said that, I do belief in the historicity of Scripture, the inerrancy of it in the sense that it is neither misleading nor misled. If u truly knew me you’d know that I don’t fall outside of the bounds of conservative orthodoxy on this one… and far from the liberal theo camp which asserts all Scripture as myth (Bultmann, Tillich, etc. – no I’m not in the same camp with those guys :) This is a huge discussion I’m unwilling to get into further but I will say don’t judge all progressive, thinking Christians to be theologically liberal, allegorical.

3. social gospel: again, I don’t know how u put 2 and 2 together here. Do you know social gospel? Have you read it? I just wrote a 4000 word paper on it. If you want to play pundits on this one we can but I’d rather not waste another breath. In short I concluded that social/Liberation gospel was theologically heterodox. But I was sympathetic with its keen observation of the oppressed and poor. Surprising conclusion for a left-leaning, allegorical Bible-reading, tree-hugging Liberal who “sacrifices the moral commandments of God’s word at the altar of the social gospel”, right! Think again. I’ll hand it to you, I like the way you discuss respectfully Craig, but you’ve unnecessarily pre-typecast me which I think hinders the dialogue because you’re assuming I’m something I’m not.

At any rate, cheers.

  joseph wrote @

Johnny (06:06:36)

This is interesting.

You are a christian and can’t quote the bible. Being I see that as very odd.

That is why there are things in the bible you do not know.

1. a person who is spiritual can judge. 1 Corinthians 2:15
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.

2. As christians we are to follow the laws of the land. (1 Peter 2:13-17)

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.

16 [Act] as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but [use it] as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

3. government is a terror on evil. Romans 13:3 & 4 say this: For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. . . . he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Rulers are to reward good and punish evil. Those who do evil are to dread the ruler. Sin is the reason why we need rulers to be a terror to evil doers today. It is sin that has brought about all the miseries and problems in this province and the problems in our families and of our hearts.

4. Bible says not to be hearers of the word but doers of the word.

I hope this helps.

Because I do not believe a person can be a christian and not know what the bible says. Being a Christian is alot more than saying your a christian. You are not a christian because you believe in a GOD or Jesus and you are saved. Because the bible says the devil believes, and is he saved. Being a christian is having a relationship with JESUS CHRIST. and part of that is knowing the word of GOD the Bible.

Please open the word of GOD and read, study, pray, fast, go to church. get saved.

GOD Bless You,
Joseph T

  Julie wrote @

The things I feel are important to vote for are things that Christians cannot accomplish with evangelism: healthcare reform to provide adequate healthcare to everyone that can’t afford it, adequate and fair social services, freedom from war (Jesus told the disciples to put their sword down when they tried to defend him in the Garden of Gethsemane…we are not longer to live by the sword), gun control, attempting to control the drug trafficking, human trafficking, an economy that allows people to provide for their families, etc.
The things Christians are responsible for that the government shouldn’t be is evangelism…if we were doing our jobs (and I say this to myself as well) we would be working to end abortion by reaching the population that gets abortion, adopting (as mentioned above), supporting the programs that reach the homosexual population with the love of God (there are many out there today such as “Where Grace Abounds” in Denver).
I don’t believe legislating morality changes hearts. Evangelism does.
And if God was behind this war in Iraq, it would be clear we are winning, and there is no evidence of that seeing that troops are still there in huge numbers and many servicement are being “re-deployed”, even though they have served their terms. That is wrong.
So…no I don’t agree with Obama on everything, and I don’t agree with McCain on everything, but who will I vote for? The one who can achieve more of what I cannot as a Christian, and I will pray for strength and grace as a Christian to achieve what politics cannot.

  Wayne Park wrote @

So far a lot of the commenting has been pretty partisan.

Some say you can’t be a Christian and vote anything but Repub. To restate the question, is that true?

Why do some Christians assert the ultimatum that you can’t vote blue and still go by the name of Christ? What is it that the Democrats are so guilty of?

  C.C. wrote @

Interesting discussion.
To answer this question, let me first talk about the underlying pinnings of how I arrive at my answer.
In understanding the word of God, I take heed from the observation that there are as many different ways of reading it as there are devout followers of Christ, and never has there in the time of man been complete consensus when people discuss what they believe God is saying to us in it. So why should I or anyone else be convinced that we have so mastered the understanding of the mind of God that we may take his place and judge or even condemn others based on our limited understanding. Should not zeal be towards seeking out the message God has for us personally in his word…the committing of oneself to align our heart with God? It is in this, living the word of God as he speaks it to our heart, that we “speak the truth” of his word. I am warry of attempts at stepping inbetween God and man and saying, “I will tell you what God means by this”. I value very much when people share, in humility, their understanding of God’s word, fully recognizing it is their own limitied understanding. I cringe when people take the beauty of the Gospel and the word of God and pridefully turn it into a weapon with which to stone their neighbor, or to bolster their own pridefullness in saying they are RIGHT because they can use the word of God to back up their opinion.
So there’s my approach, and why I have a hard time when people claim their way of thinking is the only expression of a faithful committment to the gospel of Christ.
The political realm is a complicated one, with many reasons why someone would pick one candidate over another… and if you truly try to take all things into account, it is clear there are no easy answers. It is natural to want to reduce the choice of a political candidate (and indeed decisions on political issues and questions) to something simple, something you can confidently say, this is the RIGHT way. But as satisfying as feeling right can be, this can make one biased, too quick to judgement and shutting the door on understanding. A rule of thumb for myself…if I am having trouble understanding how a good person could think differently on an issue than I do, it is a good indication that there are aspects and ways of understanding the issue that I am blinded to… It is time for me to put myself in the other persons shoes, and listen carefully and thoughtfully to their reasons. And be careful not to ascribe false reasoning to the other side in order to make yourself feel like you understand them, and are justified in your judgement of them.
This is the approach I try to take, now here are some specifics of how they have played out in my understanding of political issues.
Socialized medicine, and indeed the philosophy of having the government involved in any sort of social program is one thread that has been brought up. Sometimes it is suggested that any and all socialism is inherintely bad/evil with the extremes of it’s miserable failings being pointed to as examples (China a current popular example). Socialism in it’s extreme form has many examples of failure that can warn of its dangers. This said, every philosophy in the extreme has it’s dangers, and we would be wise to recognize and examine the role that limited socialism, with checks on its shortfalls, has played in ours and other societies. It is hard to imagine a society competely devoid of some socialist elements. What would a completely socialist-free government look like? Would it have public schooling? Would it tax to build roads? Would it tax to have a military? Generally we recognize that certain things that benefit the whole of society are worthy things to use the government as a tool to provide. The question is not should we have elements of socialism in our society, but where should we draw the line. What things do we feel it is in the best interest of our society to use the government as a tool to provide? What checks and balances do we need to put in place to make it function as smoothly as possible? In this it is instructive to not only look at the countries and instances where socialist programs have gone badly awry, but also the examples where they have been implemented effectively with good outcomes (such as in many industrialized nations, including ones with government sytems similar to our own, that have had some very successful outcomes with socialized medicine). Checkout Frontline’s piece “Sick around the world: can the U.S. learn anything from the rest of the world about how to run a health care system? ” with “5 capatilist democracies and how they do it” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
I think we would serve ourselves well in deciding if socialized medicine is the way for us to go, by looking at what are some of the pitfalls of socialized medicine, what are ways that these have sucessfully been checked…what would the costs and benefits be, and what would the costs and benefits be of the proposed alternatives. I certainly don’t see any necessity in dedication to Christ and being anti-socialized medicine. :0)
I have no more time to write and give my perspective on the other issues that have been brought up, such as abortion and whether or not being for or against allowing civil unions of same-sex couples can be compatible with being a Christian. I hope I will have a chance to in the future.
Anyway, the way I see it, devotion to Christ by no means proscribes a specific political view point along party lines, and I would hope for more dialogue, open minds, working together, and less judgement and condemnation of each other. I think that God would smile upon that.

  JO wrote @

I would like to respond to a comment made regarding legislating morality. If morality is seen as the difference between right and wrong, then it is clearly the job of government to legislate morality to a certain extent. While certain passages from the Bible may be overused, Scripture does make it clear that a government exists to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right. If that is the case, then a government must have some mechanism for discerning what is right and what is wrong. Laws against killing and stealing are examples of government determining what is right and wrong.

If we regard killing, though, as taking the life of another, then the government does not so much decide whether killing in every instance is wrong, but in which cases killing is wrong. Different societies have determined at different times what killing is acceptable and what is not. To take a simple example, all of us probably kill things every day. But, the government has determined, whether explicitly or not, that killing a fly or stepping on an ant is acceptable form of taking a life. In our society today, taking the life of a dog or cat is not acceptable, though in many countries people do have the power of life or death over their pets.

With regard to human beings, also, the government has determined which acts of taking the life of another are acceptable. In war, taking the life of others is not only acceptable, but commendable if it occurs in the heat of battle. For most of our history as a country, it has not been as right by the public to take the life of an enemy combatant, though, when the enemy has been taken prisoner. Similarly, it is acceptable by law under certain circumstances to effectively terminate the life of a patient on life support by removing the life support. In other countries (and in our own), the view of what is acceptable with regard to taking the life of another human being has been seen differently. In Nazi Germany, it was within the power of the people, I think, to have someone handicapped in certain fashions euthanized. In our country, slave owners had the power of life and death over their slaves; certain members of the society were seen as expendable and basically as property of some others in a very complete sense. Today, while it is generally seen as wrong to take the life of another adult by our society, in self-defense it typically is OK, and some contend that it is OK for the government to take the life of some who have violated the law.

So, then, the government does have the responsibility to decide between what is right and wrong. This responsibility should not simply follow the will of the people for our country is not a pure democracy. Also, there are just many problems with simply following the majority opinion.

Anyway, with regard to abortion, I do not think that anyone could contend that a fetus is not alive. Also, in some cases, it is punishable by law to take the life of a fetus. In those cases, a fetus is seen as a person and the act of killing the fetus as murder. Thus, the decision that government HAS made with regard to what is right and wrong in this instance is that it is right (or, at least, OK) for a pregnant woman to take the life of a fetus dwelling within her. This is the choice in the pro-choice argument and what government has decided is NOT wrong. Actually, I think specifically the law says that it is OK for a woman to have a medical professional take the life of a fetus, and for the medical professional to do so with the permission of the woman. If a woman used a coat hanger instead of a medical professional, I do not know if that would be legally OK.

In any event, the criteria for an acceptable form of taking a life in this instance is that the fetus is living in and dependent on the mother. Thus, the law essentially states that the fetus is the property of the mother that the mother can do with as she desires. This level of ownership, then, goes beyond a human-pet relationship, and is perhaps more in keeping with the slave owner-slave relationship or the relationship of the mentally well to the mentally handicapped in Nazi Germany, such that the pregnant female is given the power to rid herself of an unwanted life. The government of the United States has determined that this is at the very least NOT wrong, and thus has decided what is right and wrong in this instance; i.e., it has already legislated morality.

Incidentally, while this may seem an unlikely scenario, what would the decision of the courts be in a case where one member of a conjoined twin severed a connection that was vital to the life of the other member of the conjoined twin? Would that be murder? I hope this is not too much like one of the questions posed to Jesus regarding some brothers and marriage, but perhaps it is instructive in some way.

In sum, I think the issue here is not whether morality should be legislated, for government must and will legislate morality to the extent that is determines what is right and wrong, whether passively or actively, for a society. Instead, the issue is what lives are worth protecting by law and whether certain members of our society, i.e., pregnant woman, should be given the power of life and death over those dependent on them for life. I say that is not right and that it is the responsible of the government to protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us, but I also think that the government and society in general should make it easier for woman to choose what is right by providing resources to those woman faced with a difficult pregnancy and/or life after pregnancy.

Regarding voting Democrat or Republic, in some ways it is a matter of picking your poison, for there are elements of both party that are what I would call evil. I try to think of the decision as trying to discern what is best, rather than what is good. I’ll probably vote Democrat this year, but will wonder if I will be an accessory to murder. But, if I vote Republic, I’d be an accessory in many other crimes, so I feel like I’m caught between Scylla and Charybdis. I thought of abstaining, but I don’t think that’s right, either.

  Wayne Park wrote @

@C.C… eloquently put.

“Sometimes it is suggested that any and all socialism is inherintely bad/evil with the extremes of it’s miserable failings being pointed to as examples (China a current popular example).”

That’s a strange example, some would think CHina is flourishing under the current socialist gov’t. But whether or not it’s really socialist is up for debate.

As far as the faith is concerned, I’ve heard the argument that Christianity proposes one of the first forms of socialism, mind you, not the historic socialist ideology we’ve come to understand, i.e. Marxism, but the idea of sharing in common with those who have need. This increasingly makes sense to me, esp in times of economic crisis and I find myself challenged more and more by the gospel message which in strange ways parallels some Marxist thought. Safe to say history teaches us that no sane person can subscribe to this political ideology anymore, but in this current crisis as we witness the “sins” of capitalism catch up with us we start to wonder what it means to “share with those who have need”…

  Wayne Park wrote @

@ John
“I’ll probably vote Democrat this year, but will wonder if I will be an accessory to murder..” – I really relate to that sentiment.

I wish there were an easier way, some more options, and I find myself increasingly unimpressed by the positions and the candidates of both parties. Each day more and more. It’s seemed to come to a place where we’re forced to pick the better out of two bad choices.

It also irritates me when I hear religious folk rallying to the cause of either platform, in all the pomp of religious fervor. I wish these folks would pause for a sec to contemplate that the kingdom is not realized at the hand of Caesar’s edict.

Still there are many social issues that concern me, of course economy, healthcare, and so on. I’m contemplating what a neo-Christian-activist will look like who foregoes the hypocrisy of the value-voters, as well as the looseness of the Christian liberal. Maybe these neo-activists are already among us. Who are these voices? What is the future face of the Christian political activist?

  JO wrote @

Re: “I wish these folks would pause for a sec to contemplate that the kingdom is not realized at the hand of Caesar’s edict.”

Yep, that’s basically how I can rationalize my voting choice. Whatever evils the Democratic Party brings (or the Republican Party), the kingdom of God is not impotent provided those who dwell in the kingdom have not surrendered their authority to Caesar by, say, adapting the edicts of one political party as their own.

What shall the Neo-Christian activist look like? That’s a good question. What are your thoughts on that?

  Lawyerly wrote @

Read this book: “How Would Jesus Vote?” http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=33520367397&h=evjOi

Many Christians voted for Obama because they believe that the government should take care of the poor. But is that what the Bible teaches? Relatives were to buy back the land that any close kin was forced to sell due to poverty. (Leviticus 25:25) Families were also to welcome their poor relations into their homes and support them. (Leviticus 25:… Read More35). Several New Testmt. passages instruct Christians to care for the poor. Acts 5:32-35 states that the believers lived together and pooled all their property and shared with each other. Notice that 1) no one was coerced but gave up possessions voluntarily; and 2) the governing agency was not the government, but was the apostles. The Bible never states that it is the gov’t’s job to care for the poor – it’s first the job of the family and second the job of the church.
As for Republicans tending towards leading the county to war or advocating for the death penalty, these can be found in the Old Testament. Was it wrong for Israel to go to war with all those other nations in the Old Testament? And HOW can a previous comment be made comparing the lives of those who commit heinous crimes (death penalty) to those lives just beginning in the womb (abortion)? Unbelievable.

  Lawyerly wrote @

OH, as for Wayne’s comment, don’t you realize that China has CAPITALISM within a COMMUNIST society? They are not socialist in their ECONOMIC policies which makes China appear to be “flourishing.” If you look carefully at the villagers, most of them are barely making a living.

  stephanie wrote @

I’m not sure if anyone is reading this anymore, but I stumbled across this blog and found the discussion fascinating, as this is a topic I’m struggling with. Just have to throw in my 2 cents…
On the issue of legislating morality: I agree with a point stated earlier that leglislating morality won’t change people’s hearts…obviously that is God’s job that he accomplishes through His church. However, don’t most laws stem from some sort of moral code? Why is it a crime to murder? Because as a country we believe (somewhat) that life is valuable. There’s something in all our hearts that says the loss of life is devastating. Why? Because to be human is AMAZING and we see this in the story of creation. No other creature on earth is made in the image of God but humans. All humans are created in the image of God regardless of their spiritual belief system. We value love, peace, truth…because God IS those qualities, and when these things are attacked we want to (and should) protect them. THIS is what makes abortion so heinous because it communicates that life is not valuable unless it’s convenient. When a child becomes a burden to a woman or family he/she becomes dispensible. So we silence the voice of the innocent child (yes, I believe life begins at conception) and give that child no choice to be born, not even the choice to be raised by other parents and given the chance to live. (I understand the choice to have a child in special circumstances, ie: rape, medical complications etc. isn’t always black and white. I’m not naieve enough to say that it’s an easy choice to do the right thing when reality hits)

So I guess a question I’d propose is this: are all these things we’re discussing really issues of government vs. christian, or simply human issues? Do we or do we not value life? I believe all life IS valuable and that innocence should be protected, because we are all spiritual beings, regardless of whether or not you believe in God.

  trell wrote @

there is man’s law and they are god’s law,it’s up to you to follow which one.you can choose to go to hell or not.i say if you are for gays and there right and are for killing baby, you cannot be of christ…trell

  Kim wrote @

I live in a County where we have a one party system: democratic. Since the main purpose of a primary is to vote for people that’s what I did. Call me what you want.

  Abby Bates wrote @

The thing that I didn’t see covered was the fact that “everyone”, Christian or not will stand before God and give an account of his life. I believe this includes who we vote for. If this is so…will you be answering for your Liberal Christian Democratic Vote?

  This Blog Live Again « wrote @

[…] Posts By The Power Vested In Me…Hats Off To P.S. 24 in Flushing, NY"How Can You Be A Christian And Vote Democrat?"The Problem With BIG Churches"Wok The Dog""How Can You Be A Christian And Vote Republican?", Part […]

  Megan Jackson wrote @

First, just so everyone knows – I am a registered Democrat. And I’m going to admit – I only got about halfway down this thread. It’s freaking long.

Maybe it’s because I live in a very liberal east-coast city, but the conversations I’ve been having this election season haven’t centered around whether Christians should be Democrats or Republicans, but whether Christians should vote AT ALL. I have anarchist friends who view the entire system as hopelessly corrupt and are looking for alternative routes to the change we crave. They point to a Jesus who refused to align with any party/ideology but presented a third way, a lifestyle that subverts the system in order to care for the oppressed.

I will still vote (Democrat) in this election. But my primary concern is the fringe, the poor, the oppressed in our society. What does the abortion issue look like from the perspective of someone who can’t afford health care, let alone a child? Why do black men get executed at a much higher rate than white men? If we’re going to seriously look at immigration reform, might we consider how NAFTA has economically weakened Mexico to the extent that illegal immigration by Mexicans is unavoidable? (But it’s too crazy to think about helping Mexico regain stability as a start to immigration reform. Easier to build fences.)

I was so disappointed to hear both candidates pandering solely to the middle class in the debate last night. But thankfully, my vote is a tiny fraction of my advocacy for Americans in the margins. If your political action ends November 6th, then I’m sorry. You clearly don’t understand politics.

This is a great article on Christian political activism:

http://www.jesusradicals.com/getting-beyond-presidential-politics/

If we focus on little dams (see article), 2016 won’t be so dam (ha) frustrating.

  Tessa wrote @

Think about who you choose to support, you will have to answer to God for this decision one of these days.

  http://bing.com/ wrote @

“How Can You Be A Christian And Vote Democrat?

| WAYNEPARK.COM” Accieee Accieee was really
enjoyable and helpful! Within todays world that is really difficult to execute.
Thanks a lot, Fred


Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: