What’s news today?
I’m on news overload now.
😯
I had a lot to catch up on.
Some interesting things out of Jersey. I’m sure insurance companies will question the legality of this.
From NJ.gov
“Christie Administration Takes Action to Protect Storm-Impacted New Jersey Homeowners from Higher Insurance Deductibles”
“Taking action to save homeowners money following Hurricane Sandy, Governor Chris Christie signed Executive Order 107, prohibiting insurance companies from imposing costly hurricane deductibles on New Jersey homeowners. An important part of the recovery of New Jersey will be the influx of funds that occurs when insurers settle claims by New Jersey homeowners. This action will increase the total size of the payments made by the insurance industry, helping residents rebuild their homes and speed New Jersey’s path to recovery.
“We need to ensure that homeowners are not forced to pay higher out of pocket costs than required as they begin the rebuilding and repair process,” said Governor Christie. “While Hurricane Sandy was a devastating storm, it did not meet the regulatory threshold to trigger the application of hurricane deductibles by insurance companies in New Jersey. This executive order makes it clear that consumers do not have to pay these unusually large and often unexpected amounts.””
Also this, from CBS. Gas rationing has been ordered.
“Christie ordered odd-even fuel sales to help ease shortages and long gas lines that have occurred since Sandy decimated the coast earlier this week.
LINK: Read The Executive Order From Gov. Christie
Residents with license plates ending in an odd number can make gas purchases on odd-numbered days of the month Residents with plates ending in an even number will be able to buy gas on even-numbered days, the governor said.”
In New York, it’s even worse.
From CBS
“Staten Island residents are furious. They feel that in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy they’ve been ignored and left to fend for themselves.”
“You hope that the government does the right thing and steps in and helps us out. We have been looking for FEMA, [but] FEMA has not been here,” Hannula said.”
And it may actually get worse yet. From NBC
“Millions trying to recover from Superstorm Sandy were not getting much cooperation from Mother Nature: Lows this weekend were set to dip into the 30s, an issue for elderly and others without power, while a nor’easter winter storm is possibly on its way.”
“On top of the cold, the National Weather Service’s prediction center, in a Friday update, cited the “potential for a nor’easter along the Atlantic Coast next Wednesday and Thursday.””
Sadly, the death toll in the US from the storm continues to rise.
Also from NBC
“The death toll in the United States from Superstorm Sandy rose to 109 victims on Friday, as Pennsylvania reported four additional deaths and New York City reported two more fatalities. Mayor Michael Bloomberg warned: “There could be more fatalities.”
“Two bodies were recovered Friday on Staten Island. The toll in the nation’s largest city is now 41 deaths, according to the governor’s office. However, the New York Police Department had reported 40 deaths in the city.”
In other news……
If there’s nothing to hide, then why hide it?
From The DC
“Pelosi holds secret fundraiser with Islamists, Hamas-linked groups”
“Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi headlined a high-dollar fundraiser in May that was attended by U.S.-based Islamist groups and individuals linked by the U.S. government to the Hamas jihad group and to the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood movement.
The donors at the undisclosed May 16 event included Nihad Awad, the co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations, according to data provided by the nonpartisan Investigative Project on Terrorism.”
On this one, liberals hardest hit by the news. Now they need a new meme.
From The Baltimore Sun
“But here’s one of several fascinating smaller findings of the study that are kind of stunning — even if they seem obvious and ho-hum to some of my more jaded, postmodern, aren’t-we-cleverly-ironic colleagues:
ON MSNBC, the ratio of negative to positive stories on GOP candidate Mitt Romney was 71 to 3.
That’s not a news channel. That’s a propaganda machine, and owner Comcast should probably change Phil Griffin’s title from president to high minister of information, or something equally befitting the work of a party propagandist hack in a totalitarian regime. You wonder how mainstream news organizations allow their reporters and correspondents to appear in such a cauldron of bias.”
Here’s the PEW/Journalism.org piece.
And lastly, wishful thinking?
From HotAir
“Michael Barone’s prediction: Romney 315, Obama 223”
“I can’t find an electoral-vote prediction from him in 2008 but on October 30th of that year he acknowledged that an Obama victory was “likely but not quite certain.” Karl Rove did, however, make an EV prediction: Obama 338, McCain 200. This year Rove has Romney winning at least 279 electoral votes and Barone has him catching a red wave in the midwest and surfing all the way to 315.
Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and Ohio, oh my:”
Oh my indeed!
🙂
Wandering Views 
From a post by Kim a couple of days ago.
You begin to lose some sympathy when you see things like this.
http://www.waff.com/story/19981857/some-nonunion-ala-crews-turned-away-from-sandy-recovery
As for insurance, the rates will go up or the insurance will disappear.
My rates will increase because of this. Insurance companies are not eleemosynary organizations. They will make a profit, or cease to function. Only the government will operate at a loss.
LikeLike
Does Comcast own NBC?
LikeLike
Thanks, AJ, for your insightful gathering of worthy news articles. Those were all worthy of reading. I am glad you are back in your mode of sharing. We missed you!
LikeLike
RE: Staten Island- I hat to say it, but I think the skin color of most residents on the island is a shade too light for them to get the Katrina-like coverage.
RE: Barone’s prediction- we can only pray he is correct. Glen Beck, using Rasmussen data, is making similar predictions.
LikeLike
Gov. Christie better be careful demanding things of the insurance companies or the people of New Jersey will have NO insurance once this thing is over.
This past Thursday I attended a meeting her in Alabama where a well known insurance agent from a really large company spoke.
The company allows her to write two homeowner’s policies a month. She stated if she was going to use one of her two slots she wanted everything- cars, life, homeowner’s etc. She said she turned down righting a policy on a $75K house because there wasn’t enough profit in it!!!! What you can do is call around to all the other offices of the same company and see if they will write it, but how many people know to do this?
As a realtor when I write an offer on a house I have to tell the buyers and estimate of what their monthly mortgage payment will be – that includes principal, interest, taxes, and HOMEOWNERS. You can’t get a mortgage without homeowner’s insurance. Do you see the problem here????
I had a woman I once knew who was an economics professor. She told me NEVER to feel sorry for an insurance company. They will always operate at a profit.
LikeLike
here instead of her and writing instead of righting. I do know the difference and how to spell even if I am from Alabama!!!!
LikeLike
AJ, great to have you back. Your absence proved that this site is rudderless without your leadership. We tried otherwise but couldn’t bring it off.
On the subject of polls, WSJ/NBC today is out with Obama ahead 49-47 in Florida and 55-49 in Ohio. In my view this is more a time for nail-biting than premature confidence.
LikeLike
Also, I am glad Peter said what he did about Staten Island instead of your Token South Belle-White Trash having to say it.
I have read with some interest all that is going on in the Northeast. My heart truly hurts for some of these people but I have no patience with the whiners. You had warning for a WEEK!!!! You are now putting other people’s lives at risk. Compare this to the Mississippi Gulf Coast where entire towns were washed away during Katrina. You never heard much about that did you? The people just got up the next day and started cleaning up and rebuilding. What you heard about was the Whiney Butts in New Orleans.
LikeLike
Gov. Malloy here in Connecticut is doing the same as Gov. Christie.
LikeLike
My wife and I are looking at photos of the devastation. These are places we know, and areas with people we know. This is hard to look at. As bad as it was here, water wasn’t the issue. It was for many. Our hearts ache for these people. We will continue to pray for them.
Tomorrow I’ll tell you all some stories of the good, the bad, and the ugly, that I witnessed this week.
I am so looking forward to church tomorrow. I need to be there.
LikeLike
Sails,
😳
Thank you.
LikeLike
Kim is exactly right. Those folk along the Mississipi Gulf
Coast during Katrina were at least as hard hit compared to those in Staten Island and simply got to work for the most part without whining. There is a world of difference between a Haley Barbour and Cuomo/Bloomberg.
LikeLike
“A red wave in the midwest” – I like that…
LikeLike
Here’s your daily Benghazi post, this one from the WSJ, which still would not be “legitimate” enough for some of my relatives, but which is succinct, thorough and well written enough for the professional in the family:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578090612465153472.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
And in case you missed it last night, my former NBC News contact sent me another interesting link explaining the obedient and patriotic silence of the MSM:
http://huff.to/QZUBUG
LikeLike
Since I’m in moderation owing to two links, here they are
#1. http://huff.to/QZUBUG
LikeLike
#2 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578090612465153472.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
LikeLike
And an election reflection:
http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/02/50000-feet-looking-down/
LikeLike
I liked a comment from Michelles “Red State” link above.
The entire article reflects my thinking.
i.e. The world is headed for trouble. It will take longer with Romney than Obama.
Christ, not Romney is the answer.
But, the article says
When I wake up on Wednesday morning, I’m still going to have my wife. I’m still going to have my kids. I’m still going to have my family. And I’m still going to have my God. So will you.
Some of you, on both sides, are convinced that the end of the world is nigh. It is. But not quite yet and no one really knows when.
What I do know for sure is that I’m headed home to eternity and this world is temporary. So while I like politics and have my side and want it to win, I’m not going to be partying in the street if my side does win and I’m not going to think the end of the world is upon us if my side loses.
You should not either.
And a couple of relevant comments. I’ve deleted the commentor’s names.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Edmund Burke
I think God is in control but he expects us to do “something” to show that we are doing our part.
And
The sound of Sam’s shears in the garden was now silent. Frodo said, “I wish the ring had never come to me. I
wish none of this had ever happened!”
Gandalf said, “So do all who live to see such
times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is
what to do with the time that is given us.”
My job here is to do what little I can to make a difference. The world may be headed to destruction, but I’m not tasked to assist it. I plan to do my part to retard that slide.
LikeLike
Well, I hope Barone is right, I’ve always respected him. But I don’t know … Krauthammer, whom I also really respect, last night also predicted Romney would win but only by the barest of tiniest margins.
Like several have already said, if Romney wins it’s not going to cause for celebration — it will feel more like a “whew,” we have dodged a 4-year bullet.
We’ll have received a bit of a reprieve at worst; a long-shot opportunity to begin turning things around at best. But it won’t be immediate and it won’t be pretty.
And if the results are anywhere near close enough to be contested, it could be a long, dark winter ahead.
Either way, I somehow don’t expect the end of this election to bring much of any satisfaction to either side. The problems are huge, the hole we’re in is very big. The 50-50 national split and grudge match will go on, at least for the time being.
But don’t ever forget: Hope springs eternal and all things are possible with God. 🙂 And our hope is really only in Him.
So I’m not giving up on the world just yet. Going through deep valleys means a hilltop looms.
LikeLike
About the storm recovery. They have one week to rescue everyone or they owe George Bush an apology.
LikeLike
From Michelle’s last link: I think we are the last best hope of mankind on this planet.
QotD: Is it true that we (Americans) are the last best hope of mankind on this planet? If so, why?
LikeLike
Tychicus, until around 1900, civilization depended on Europe for it’s propagation and stability. All of Asia, Africa and South America were backward countries. They may have been satisfied in their backwardness, but they were still backward.
World War I was the turning point in all of that. And it was due to a mistake.
Out of that, the US became the largest industrial and most powerful military nation in the world. Even in the great depression and shallow military structure in 1940. It took all of six months to create an overwhelming force. At the end of WW II, one carrier fleet had more firepower that the remainder of the world combined.
What did we do with that? We freed the Philippines. We sent millions to Europe. We helped Japan form a thriving democracy. We were the bulwark against aggressive communism.
We, almost alone, helped Israel form a nation
We weren’t always smart. But the world would have been in terrible shape without us.
Europe couldn’t do it. Still can’t.
Russia presently is reemerging, and China is determined to control the Western Pacific.
Without the US, Russia would control Europe.
Without the US, China would have Formosa and be dominant over Southeast Asia.
Without the US, millions of Muslims would be massing against Israel.
And the burden of spreading the Gospel is largely that of the US.
This has been long, but just a summary of the importance of the US in the world.
As Reagan said, “If not us, Who?”
LikeLike
We have a president who apologizes the the rest of the world for that.
If he is reelected, he will make America a backward nation.
The world will then be confronted by two forces.
Asia would be under Chinese hegemony and Asia and Africa under Islam.
Russia no longer has the population and industrial base to be a major threat anymore. But they do have oil.
We have oil too. Obama will prevent us from getting it.
The Lord establishes and brings down kingdoms. Maybe a weak America fits into his plan somehow.
We will see.
LikeLike
It’s time for dissent. We’re concerned about the trend in our nation to redefine marriage. We should be more worried when swaths of Christians find it acceptable to support a man who redefines CHRIST! Psalm 2, you guys. We and our rulers invite God’s wrath when we reject the Son. It’s there in black and white.
LikeLike
solarpancake. You think we have a choice?
China either stole or bought all the technology it has from us.
That won’t last long. They’re sending thousands to our universities.
LikeLike
Neither man running for president is one I would sit under for spiritual direction. I have to use my civic brain to determine which would make my worship life easier.
Since the current administration refuses to even allow the Catholics to remain true to their well-known beliefs, I don’t have a choice. I have to vote for the other nominee.
It’s been that clear and simple to me for a very long time.
Now if only the robocallers would leave me alone . . . .
LikeLike
Thank you for your dissent, solarpancake. I thought I was the lone dissenter around here. 😉 You have emboldened me to not give up.
Important reading for every Christian:
https://generationswithvision.com/2012/should-i-vote-for-romney/
LikeLike
And another one, if you’re brave:
http://prolifeprofiles.com/mitt-romney-abortion
LikeLike
Solarpancake and Six Arrows, Romney is a loyal fourth-generation Mormon. My guess is if you had a candid talk with him, he, like many sophisticated Mormons, would aver reservations regarding the rather bizarre theology of Joseph Smith.
The truth is that Romney is a very moral person by the highest of traditional Christian standards; further, he stands for fundamental change of Obama’s disastrous policies.
Those hung up on Mormon theology who don’t vote for Romney are quite naive about both religious and political reality.
LikeLike
What Michelle said.
LikeLike
Chas: I wasn’t really referring to the past, when the US has certainly fulfilled that role, but the present and what it will look like in the future. If we don’t return to Biblical principles, then I don’t see how we will be the last best hope of mankind.
LikeLike
Six Arrows, Romney was regarded as a staunch supporter by Catholic and Evangelical pro-life advocate in Massachusetts.. He made perfectly clear that he personally opposed abortion, while explaining that he had no authority to oppose the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. This is something that any New England Republican must do to run an effective campaign.
Romney is far from the evil person that you make him out to be.
LikeLike
Thychicus, America at present in defending free states around the world and aggressively fighting radical Islamic terrorists continues to reflect basic Biblical principles. Your distinction between past and present America is rather dubious at best.
LikeLike
Tychicus, I don’t think many of us would argue with what you said in 5:01.
I don’t consider either nominee to be within any kind of orthodox Christianity, at least from any public information we have.
But in terms of principles and stances on many of the issues important to us, including abortion, Romney offers what I think is a pretty clear choice for Christian voters in 2012.
Either Obama or Romney will be our next president. And that’s basically our choice, like it or not. I simply don’t accept the argument that there’s “no” choice between those two options — or that one would be as bad as the other.
LikeLike
Sails, the political reality for decades now is that we’ve been headed further and further from conservative fiscal and social principles. The Democrats and Republicans alike have been driving the train toward the cliff since Bush I. And we’re supposed to just vote for the one of those two (Romney or Obama) who we think won’t get us to the cliff as fast?
That’s great news for the future generations who will have to clean up after the wreck that we’re essentially voting for by time after time casting a ballot for Democrat or Democrat-lite. 😦
LikeLike
I think it’s very possible that the nation is at a turning point. We haven’t abandoned our past foundations. But we are making turns in a direction that could lead to that in the future, possibly even a fairly near future.
But it ain’t over yet. Go vote.
LikeLike
After the election get busy building a new viable party if you feel so led.
But in the immediate future, another alternative probably isn’t going to pop up before Tuesday. For now, this is what we have.
LikeLike
Sails, I didn’t say Romney was an evil person. If you got that from the links I provided, then it is those authors who are saying that. I don’t necessarily agree with everything said in every link I post. I posted them to present another viewpoint from what I usually see here, links that in general I agree with.
As far as Romney being pro-life, well, he’s flip-flopped so many times, we’re supposed to just believe whatever he last said?
LikeLike
Donna, how will there ever be “a new viable party” if most people continue with their “they can’t win, therefore I’m not voting for them” thinking? 😉
LikeLike
Sails: I certainly wouldn’t consider the Benghazi Bungle as “aggressively fighting radical Islamic terrorists.” And as a whole (not just in the area of foreign policy), in recent history (and especially in the last few years) we have been moving away from Biblical principles. I think you’d be hard pressed to argue otherwise.
LikeLike
Six Arrows, the reality is that Romney/Ryan, if elected, would make major changes in the right direction for the good of America and the world. Should you and others by voting for an ideal Third-Party candidate manage to defeat him and elect Obama, you will have made an egregious mistake, as happened when naive idealists succeeded in defeating H.W. Bush in favor of Clinton. Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.
LikeLike
Tychicus, though I disagree with Obama on many points, especially Benghazi, he is fighting to some degree the War against radical Islamic terrorists.
Your view that America has become an unbiblical nation is rather naive. In a fallen world all nations fall short, though in the past and at present we have proven to be a great strength against totalitarian forces in the world including radical Islam.
LikeLike
Tychicus
America began moving away from Biblical principles long ago. I recently read about the explanation of the Overton Window. This shows the progress of degeneration in our society. i.e.
The degrees of acceptance of public ideas can be described roughly as:
1. Unthinkable
2. Radical
3. Acceptable
4. Sensible
5. Popular
6. Policy This is the world’s method of writing sin out of existence.
This degeneration has become part of our popular culture. From “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damm”, to the obligatory profanity in most modern movies. And getting there in Television. Another illustration is the so-called wardrobe malfunction at the Superbowl concert a couple of years ago. Some said it’s just a small thing, don’t make such a fuss. I contended that we needed to make a fuss because it’s a step down the Overton Window.
I’m reading The Enemy at Home by Diensh D’Souza. He contends the Muslims “hate America because of how Americans use that wealth and power. …The radical Muslims are convinced that America and Europe have become sick, demented societies that destroy religious beliefs, undermine traditional morality, dissolve the patriarchal family and corrupt the innocence of children.”
There is lots of truth in that. However, they have logs in their own eyes.
Much more could be said, but the point is: You are correct. It is a corrupt society and not getting better. Romney can’t change that, either. However, consider that much of the evil we’re discussing came not by popular demand, but the result of a few people lobbying the powers in Washington: abortion on demand, prohibition of prayer in school and other public places, removal of crosses, homosexual celebration and marriage, and many other things,
It’s really hard to decide between a Mormon and free contraception.
But, as bad as it is, our exporting corruption through movies and TV, we also send out most of the missionaries. When there is an earthquake or typhoon, Americans are there to help. We are still a shield against radical powers.
God has every right to judge America if He chooses. However, there may still be ten good men in Sodom. Historically, America was in spiritual darkness just before the Great Awakening. It could happen again.
Pray for it. And don’t give up on America. I have youngsters that need us.
LikeLike
Sails: I didn’t say that we have become an unbiblical nation, but rather that we are moving away from Biblical principles, and therefore also moving away from the role of being that “last best hope” that we had fulfilled so well in the past.
LikeLike
The “Golden Triangle of Freedom” sure isn’t what it used to be…
http://links.mkt3980.com/servlet/MailView?ms=NDYxOTk2OQS2&r=OTQ0MjI5MDk2S0&j=NTAzNTMyODIS1&mt=1&rt=0
LikeLike
While I don’t agree with everything the Mormon’s believe, those I have known personally are very ethical people and I would be happy to be their friend. Romney is also offset by Ryan.
Please, please, please…this election is too important for conservatives to split their vote.
LikeLike
It ain’t about Romney, it’s about Obama.
He has to go.
LikeLike
6 Arrows, I think it’s not only a matter of thinking a 3rd party candidate “can’t” win — but of creating a party (or supporting a candidate with enough real support) that is compelling enough to the electorate.
Honestly, I’m not particularly impressed by any of the 3rd party candidates that come down the pike — whether Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or whoever. And if they don’t appeal to a pretty mainstream type like me, I doubt they’d have a chance in winning over a majority of the electorate.
Parties are, of necessity, made up of coalitions. Sometimes that’s an uneasy coalition with a certain push and pull for dominance, but if you create a party that’s so narrow it only appeals to a very small number of people, it will always be a “3rd” party.
And I’d add, also, there needs to be a generally perceived void for a new party to rise up — one of the parties essentially has to be close to crashing and burning. That may happen to either of them at some point. But I don’t sense it’s anywhere close to that situation now.
LikeLike
In other words, many (most?) of us aren’t turning away from the “other” candidates or parties because they can’t win. We’re turning away from them because they’re just not that compelling to begin with.
I don’t feel like I’m voting for Romney as a compromise position (although he’s not my ideal candidate). He’s the clear — and the only viable — choice that makes sense in this race.
LikeLike
Tychicus, I have read Os Guiness’s book, A Free People’s Suicide,
and essentially agree with its premise. Nevertheless, a vote for some ineffectual third-party candidate would favor Obama and exacerbate America’s suicidal trend.
Sensible people understand real choices involved in most elections including the inevitably far less than ideal candidates. Serious Christians know how to navigate in a fallen world.
LikeLike
Concerning voting for a third party- DON’T DO IT! For the last 3 elections, I voted third party, but this time, I am voting for Romney because he is the only viable anti-Obama. The Libertarians have great ideas, but until they get established at the local and state levels, they will not win a presidential election. The same goes for the Constitution Party. If you want another major party, start from the local level and work your way up. If a 3rd party won the presidential election, noting would happen in Washington because that person would have no votes in Congress. He might get some of them to vote for parts of his agenda, but it would be a long road. Get some CPs in state legislatures, governors mansions, Congress and the Senate, then you would have a chance.
LikeLike
Kim @ 6:51, maybe this time, splitting the conservative vote will finally wake up the Republican Party to the need to nominate a real conservative for President. We didn’t get that in 2008 with McCain and we don’t have that now with Romney.
Sails @ 5:53, a most “egregious mistake” a person can make when voting, in my opinion, is to violate one’s conscience. Both Romney and Ryan are in favor of the destruction of innocent pre-born human life in some circumstances. My conscience will not permit me to vote for candidates who espouse the murder of pre-born innocents because of unfortunate events surrounding their conception. You may not share that same conviction I do, but for me, it is a barrier to voting for the Romney/Ryan ticket.
If Obama wins and you choose to blame third-party-candidate voters for their “mistake”, well, it won’t bother me. I’m voting according to my God-given convictions, and leaving the results in the Lord’s hands, where they always have been and always will be.
And if Romney wins…well, I’m sure CB will do an apt job of pointing out things about his administration that “conservatives” might not like to hear. 😉
LikeLike
OK, I’ve been picking away at that last comment of mine for quite a while between getting supper for my family and other things. I see quite a few comments have come in between my last two comments that I’ll probably answer later.
Thanks for the discussion.
LikeLike
It’s simply a fact–like water running downhill–that a nation whose leaders do not kiss the Son will incur God’s wrath. That’s not to say citizens, too, affect the character of a nation (not that America, or American Christians, are any great shakes there, either), but Psalm 2, people. It’s irrefutable.
And when that passage mention God sits in the heavens and laughs at those rulers who take counsel together against Him, among the things I believe he’s laughing at now is all the handwaving about the economy and gay rights and abortion, etc. (all of which I don’t deny are important), but of greater concern than those politics to the individual’s soul *AND* to any nation is what a person believes about Christ. That goes for a nation’s rulers; do they kiss the Son? Mitt Romney doesn’t. How can an argument be made any otherwise than that he *rejects* the Son?
LikeLike
Good posts, 6 arrows. Keep the faith, for we *walk* by faith!
LikeLike
If there’s any argument to be made from Scripture about whom to vote for, the *viability* option certainly isn’t one of them. How many happenings in Scripture would we have thought were “viable” before they either came to pass, or were manifested in a way that eventually brought about God’s glory in unforeseen ways?
LikeLike
solarpancke, should you think that a vote that could have the effect of electing Obama will bring about some sort of God’s glory you are a self righteous soul with rocks in your head.
LikeLike
Everyone should definitely vote their convictions. I don’t think the conservative vote will be split to such a great degree that it’ll make a difference. Although if the results are razor close, perhaps I’m wrong.
But I don’t sense that there’s a significant number of conservatives jumping ship, maybe I’m wrong. Third party candidates always get some votes.
I’d love to see us return to more biblical principles as a nation. But I’m a firm believer also that it must come from the bottom up — our culture, right now, isn’t near that point, sad to say.
Now I do have what I feel is a very real dilemma in my congressional district. The only 2 candidates are both liberal (pro-choice) Democrats. What do I do? Not vote in that race? That’s where I’m leaning.
Now that’s a case where there truly is no choice.
Romney & Obama, big choice available.
LikeLike
Sails,
You can have your arrogance…I’ll take Scripture, and I’ll keep in this noggin of mine the myriad lessons from such that God can certainly bring about his glory through all kinds of means. He raised up Pharaoh for just such a purpose. Remember?
Romans 9:17: For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
LikeLike
Anyway, Psalm 2. I would say, “Sorry, it’s right there, folks,” but I’m not sorry it’s there at all.
LikeLike
Thus we should pray for whomever is president, no? I remember praying that for the Obamas, that they would come to true saving faith.
I also know quite a number of Christians who voted for Jimmy Carter.
Ok, ‘nuf said.
But just keep in mind, God can call leaders to Himself — while they’re in leadership.
In the meantime, the policies followed by one man vs. another will offer protection against evil (or not) for the people under their kingdom.
LikeLike
6Arrows you are welcome to vote for anyone you wish. I voted for Perot. I regret that vote to this day. I would vote for the Devil before I would vote for Obama or give him a second chance.
I am very much Pro-life. I don’t know if you know my story but I used to be pro-choice. I was 18 weeks pregnant when I watched my daughter bat the amnio needle. At that point I was galvanized to be pro life.
I cannot in good conscious give Obama a second chance and I feel like splitting my vote would do that. I am not so much voting FOR Romney as I am voting AGAINST Obama. You do what you feel God wants you to do.
LikeLike
This is much the same issue I had with Paul. There are some cold, hard facts you cannot get around by claiming to be voting your conscience, yet ignoring what doing that does. It elects Obama and his agenda. The difference between Romney and Obama couldn’t be more obvious. One needs look no further than the pro-life/pro-abortion example. If 3rd party votes swing things to Obama, do you 3rd party folks not bare some responsibility for what follows because you cost an imperfect candidate more in line with your values, the election? I’m not trying to start a fight, I just don’t get how you ignore this obvious fact.
I’m serious here, please explain to me the reasoning which allows you to think this obsolves your conscience from the pro-abortion, taxpayer funded agenda that follows? One which you cannot deny your involvement in helping to allow by not picking the only real alternative to that agenda. I’m sorry, but you know the 3rd party candidate can not win. I’m asking this with respect and I’m not knocking anybody here, I value all your opinions, but I just don’t understand this mindset.
Thanks to any who care to chime in.
And remember, when it comes down to it, you and God are the only ones who know who you picked in the booth. That’s as it should be, and nobody needs to tell me who they picked either way. That’s your business. I would just like to understand this better is all.
LikeLike
the real AJ: There are some cold, hard facts you cannot get around by claiming to be voting your conscience, yet ignoring what doing that does. It elects Obama and his agenda.
I disagree. God appoints Obama, or Pharaoh, or Romney, or not. No 3rd party, or write-in, or abstaining voter bears the kind of responsibility you refer to. But Abraham bears some responsibility for introducing Ishmael into this world by trying to force God’s hand. Besides, and 6 arrows alluded to this earlier, any number of things might be different now had Christians taken a more hardlined approach a few elections ago. Republicans might not be so inclined to trot out limp wristed George H Ws and Bob Doles and John McCains had they done so. We just can’t know that kind of thing to parse out responsibility…although *voting* for those guys? Yeah, you vote for one of those guys, you bear some responsibility for their disappointing results.
LikeLike
Oh, and did I mention Psalm 2?
LikeLike
What will happen is they will have to move more to the middle to get a majority.
LikeLike
And/or they will win less often. You will get the opposite result from what you want.
LikeLike
Fuzzyface: Who will have to move to the middle? I’m not sure who your responding or referring to.
But that does raise an interesting point: “the middle” is way “left” of what is used to be. I really don’t think there’s any denying that a voting policy of “elect the electable” has largely accounted for that.
And besides: for the Christian, “the middle” should be a meaningless concept. Instead, we have right and we have wrong. Let the mockers insult us for seeing things in “black and white.” That’s how God sees things.
LikeLike
We could always become Amish. 🙂 I don’t think they vote.
LikeLike
Well, there are other elections and issues on every general election ballot. And then there’s other kinds of activism we can involve ourselves to oppose godlessness and godless men, including bho.
LikeLike
Sails, I value your participation in this discussion, but the following statement you made at 9:10 pm
should you think that…[then] you are a self righteous soul with rocks in
your head
is not becoming of someone who claims the Name of Christ, hypothetical though the statement may have been.
Language like that directed at a fellow human made in the image of Christ does not present a Christian witness to those who have no relationship with Him.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t have voted for professing Christian, Jimmy Carter, than I would for professing Christian, Barack Obama.
LikeLike
Solarpancake @ 8:21 — Thanks for your encouragement. I appreciate your posts, too.
AJ @ 10:04 — Thanks for your questions. I would like to chime in more with my reasoning to help you understand my mindset more, and will do so either tomorrow or Monday (I hope to tomorrow).
Everyone else — I’ll also be responding to some of your comments from this evening, and I’m guessing there will be more tomorrow, so…in other words, you haven’t heard the last of it yet from me! 😉
Have a good night and a blessed time worshiping our Lord tomorrow.
LikeLike
So Solarpancake, for whom do we vote? No one? We cannot see another’s heart. Those who profess Christianity may not be believers. Those who have other views (and yet promote values with which we agree) may become true believers.
Exactly what do you propose?
LikeLike
Are you saying we should refrain from voting for president altogether?
LikeLike
It seems to me our best course is to vote for the person who supports the values we do (whether he will be faithful or not in that remains always to be seen); and to pray for that person while in office — pray that they bow the knee to Jesus, that they know (or would come to know) Him — and that they would understand they are under His rule and are not rulers unto themselves.
Barring that, I’m not sure what you’re saying we should or shouldn’t be doing as citizens of a democratic state that permits us to vote for our leaders.
?
LikeLike
donna j: I don’t suggest we need to see another’s heart *exhaustively,* but whether he gives signs, *according to Psalm 2 in our Bibles,* of obeisance to the Son of God. Mitt Romney is a Mormon. He does not kiss the Son, he rejects Him. He redefines Him in a way at least as perverse as others redefine marriage. Barack Obama may be a true believer, but he gives little sign of submission to the Lord, in my opinion.
I will write in Ron Paul. I certainly don’t think he’s a “perfect” candidate, and I even think it’s likely that where his politics accord with Scripture, they often do so on accident. But I do believe his Christian profession is sincere, and that he is willing to let Scripture inform him in his politics. I see him as “good enough.”
I think an equally satisfactory option is to abstain.
In either case, as I mentioned earlier, there is more to citizen action than voting for president. Because I may not cast a vote in that race does not mean I will live the rest of my life as a vegetable. I’m confused why people make that assumption.
LikeLike
Ah, so you know Mitt Romney. I wasn’t aware of that.
Yes, his church is heretical.
But I still think it is possible that believers exist in other “religions.” I’m not saying he’s an orthodox believer, I suspect he probably is not. He belongs to the church in which he was raised — and that church is not Christian.
But what I’m suggesting is, how do we truly know any of these people’s faith? Really. I don’t feel particularly convinced the Ron Paul is a believer, to be honest. But be that as it may — I simply don’t know him.
We don’t really know any of them in that sense, when you come right down to it. Most of our presidents through the years have been professing Christians. Some were, I’m sure. I’m guessing some perhaps were not.
Again, we elect the best possible candidate who will advance or stand behind the values that the Bible tells us are best for mankind. We pray that our leaders know (or come to know) the true Christ.
In the meantime, policies are enacted that will be best for the people because they coincide with biblical principles.
LikeLike
Strong character and the principles a leader would put into practice, to the best of his ability given a government of checks and balances, seem to me essential in voting for anyone for leadership. When neither candidate appears (on the surface) to be Christian, that, to me, is where we go in making our decision.
Write ins are fine. I guess. Ron Paul won’t be the first — or last — to attract a scattered few of those, I’m sure. 😉
LikeLike
SolarPancake,
What I’m saying is that if the far right leaves the Republican Party it will move more towards the Democrat Party to catch more of those in the middle.
Is Ron Paul running as a write-in? If not it does nothing to write in his name except make you feel good.
LikeLike
I was wondering the same thing, I’m not sure Paul has filed to be an official write-in. I don’t think he has.
LikeLike
I still remember the American Independent party (started as an off-shoot of Gov. George Wallace) in the 1960s.
Just saying these third parties have been trying for years to become players and there aren’t so far enough “takers” to make it so. I’m one of those conservatives who feels (most of the time) OK with the GOP, I’m more moderate on some issues (immigration), more conservative on others.
I wouldn’t want to belong to a far-right (or libertatian-styled) political party.
LikeLike
And we’re no where near seeing a grassroots movement to become a theocracy. In the new heaven and new earth it will all perfectly align.
But for now, we have a fallen world run by fallen people — in which flawed voters are asked to elect flawed leaders.
LikeLike
Oh wait, I guess I’m wrong. This website says Ron Paul can win via just a write-in campaign — and with electoral votes to spare.
Who knew?
http://www.dailypaul.com/261207/ron-paul-has-enough-write-in-states-to-win-the-election-at-302-with-extra-to-spare
LikeLike
In the comments section of your link many said that at least some of those states are not correct. If he is not an official write-in candidate in your state, writing his name in is a waste. And the spelling has to be legible and exactly how he certified when he signed his write in papers.
LikeLike
I should have said ‘total waste’. I don’t know of a write in candidate ever winning when there was another eligible name actually on the ballot, so I think that writing him in would be an almost total waste even if he was an official candidate. If he had his name on the ballot, I would downgrade that to just a waste (or a disgrace if he makes Obama win) since he would only get a small percentage of votes and the US doesn’t require a majority of votes cast to win so that the winner takes all and coalition governments are not made.
LikeLike
So, it turns out that solarpancake, our super Christian given to moralistic sermons, is an ordinary Paulite ready to cast a futile vote. That figures;
LikeLike
President Obama: “You know me. So when you’re trying to work out this issue of change, part of that is you have to ask yourself, ‘Who can I trust?'”
Mr. President, we do know you. What in the world makes you think that you are trustworthy?
Two more days…
LikeLike
It seems to me that people like SolarPancake and 6 Arrows get too hung up on what voting is.
Let’s take for instance getting married. For that you, as a Christian, want to be very selective and only choose someone with the highest of morals and Christian standards and a vibrant Christian walk. But if you are choosing someone to mow your lawn you don’t need to be near as selective.
When you are looking for a pastor, your selection criterion will be very high as well.
As far as business is concerned, it can run the gammot. If you are looking for a business partner, you should be very selective. But if you’re deciding who to buy you shoes from these criterion are not near as important – in fact you can choose someone just for the reason of opening the door to start a relationship with them and reach out to them with Christ.
Politics can run a pretty high range as well. For instance it matters which office one is going for – for instance the criterion for Mine Inspector would not be the same as for the President.
It also matters to what extent you are involved with a candidate. Your criterion for choosing to endorse or work on a candidate’s campaign should be much higher than your criterion whether to vote for someone or not. Often in voting you are just doing damage control and choosing the one that will do the least damage.
Remember voting for someone is much different than marrying them.
LikeLike
Wow! What a charitable group! Nice site ya run here, webmaster.
I’ll point out how nobody seems to care about Psalm 2.
donna j: Why would it not be reasonable to assume that an intelligent, lifelong Mormon likely does not embrace the Christ of the Bible? I’ll give you that *maybe,* by a sheer, willful act of profound ignorance, such a person does not hold to his church’s doctrines, despite being instructed in those ways his whole life, even serving as an LDS missionary, but that such a person instead has somehow come to have orthodox beliefs that contradict all he’s been taught….no, wait, I won’t give you that, because it’s entirely implausible. No, I don’t “know” Mitt Romney, but it’s easy to know *enough.*
LikeLike
Fuzzyface, the Bible says all kinds of things about what constitutes good rule and rulers.
LikeLike
donna j and Fuzzyface (I’m scrolling thru trying to catch up), I didn’t say I’d vote 3rd party/write in/abstain with the intention of winning anything. The consequences are God’s, the duty is mine. It’s a self-fulfilling mentality, anyway, when Christians glom on to unsatisfactory candidates–because we get unsatisfactory results. You want Bob Dole and George H W, you can have ’em. Notice how infrequently such candidates and office holders really come through for us pro-lifers? Why are we surprised about that? How strange that we are, when we are, but it also seems like we don’t care, as long as the other guy’s not holding office.
Sails, nice, brother or sister. You could have at least given a biblical reference for how I’m a moralizer, if biblical references meant anything to such as you!
LikeLike
Again, I haven’t seen a candidate I’m sold-out for in many years — and, to be honest, I doubt I ever will. It’s the nature of politics. ALL of them have a mix of things I like, things I don’t like. I’ve lived long enough to realize and accept this. It is naive to fall hook, line and sinker for a political candidate.
Beware of them all, to some extent, I say. People tend to learn that with experience. 😉 You probably will, too, Solarpancake. Just wait.
I’m not looking to vote for a perfect king who will then impose his will upon all. To some degree, I understand the concept of “2 kingdoms” and the one we live in on this side of heaven is deeply flawed, even if you also embrace the post-mil position (and, again, to some degree I do) that the world is slowly getting better.
When the whole world is filled with the knowledge of God, we will be free of the political mess and the politicians that go with it. But probably not until then.
LikeLike
And we vote for a viable candidate who comes closest to our views out of our love of neighbor.
To a large degree, we are all affected by who rules us. To write in a candidate only to further ensure that a poor ruler continue to exert his policies that ultimately impact us, our neighbors, and, ultimately, our children is simply not being wise.
If one simply cannot vote for someone who is a Mormon, then fine. I know there are Christians who hold that position. But, again, I’m suggesting that we really have very little idea of what any of them believe — including those who are professing “evangelicals” in the end.
Instead, we judge these candidates by their character (as much as we can know about it), their policies and their deeds.
LikeLike
Kind of ignored what I’ve been saying, donna j.
And what’s with this not acknowledging Psalm 2?
LikeLike
Not ignoring it at all. Vote your conscience.
LikeLike
ARGUE THE POINTS, BUT PLEASE AVOID WHAT CAN BE TAKEN AS PERSONAL INSULT, AND THAT GOES FOR EVERYONE.
THANK YOU
THE MODERATOR
LikeLike
SolarPancake,
“Nice site ya run here, webmaster.”
Yes, I think so too. I’ll ignore the sarcasm and say thank you instead. I had a higher priority this morning, worship at church, which I’m sure you understand. I do nothing Sunday until after church, I don’t even check the blog.
I’ve reminded everyone about the rules and to be kind. If you have further concerns about the blog and how I run it, you may contact me with them.
wanderingviews@hotmail.com
LikeLike
solarpancake: Fuzzyface, the Bible says all kinds of things about what constitutes good rule and rulers. Yes, the Bible does have a lot to say on these topics; however, fortunately America is not a theocracy where the Bible is of necessity central to our rule.
Our two best presidents, Lincoln and Washington, were known mostly for their depth of character and virtue, not their strict adherence to Biblical precepts. Eisenhower, our best 20th-century president, was a nominal Christian.
An important reason that America and the West, have been very successful over the years is that they have wisely distinguished between religion and state and kept them largely separate. Beware of rulers or citizens who pine for a theocracy; Muslim states often fail miserably due to their attempt to rule through Shariah law. State power tends to corrupt serious religion. Christ was tempted by Satan with state power and summarily rejected it.
Obama and Romney ought to be judged mainly by their character and virtue, along with their stance on policies, not by some vague and naive standard as to whether they kiss Christ.
LikeLike
Sails: Eisenhower was better than Reagan?
LikeLike
Yes, Eisenhower had more intellectual depth and sophistication of rule than Reagan; as a result he was able to set the pattern of seriously challenging Communism while preserving the peace. Eisenhower was, also, more strict on budget matters than Reagan.
I certainly admire Reagan and place him just behind Esisenhower. To be sure this is a debatable matter.
LikeLike
Sails, a verbal salad may satisfy the palate of talking heads and campaign managers, but we’re Christians. What an odd way to dismiss the entirety of the counsel of God by saying, “The Bible does speak to these issues, however….” However? Okie doke. Whatev. Just ignore it.
LikeLike
the real AJ: Do what you want with the sarcasm. You made a post accusing folks like me of being responsible for propagating a pro-abortion agenda. In light of that, I’d say my response was fairly reserved, no? I appreciate your call for civility. I’ll be curious to see if that’s enforced. Hey, it’s your site. Block or ridicule opposing ideas, if you want. Sounds like fun to me (that’s a little more sarcasm for ya!).
LikeLike
Solarpancake, I am far from arguing that one should ignore the Bible. I read a chapter from both Testaments daily and at present, after reading Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, am tackling Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.
My point is that we in America and the West have wisely kept church and state for the most part separated. This makes sure that religion is not corrupted by the state and the state is prevented from being insufferably moralistic, aa happens in Muslim states suffused with Shariah law.
LikeLike
The final polls are beginning to come out — the two are literally tied in this one:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83275.html?hp=l1
Well, it shouldn’t be a boring election night anyway. Unless the polls aren’t getting entirely accurate readings, which also is a possibility.
LikeLike
Sails, that’s well and good, but does nothing to reassure me you haven’t dismissed what Scripture has to say on these subjects. You’ve admitted the Bible has a lot to say on these matters, then with the typing of one adverb (“however”) you’ve relegated that content to irrelevance.
Would you care to explain how Psalm 2, in commanding Gentile rulers to honor the Son of God, has application in our age. This web page is on the verge of setting the record for “most ignored passage mentioned by a commenter.”
LikeLike
Solarpancake and 6 Arrows, I read through your arguments late last night and prayed afterward. I’ve thought about them again today.
Can either of you give me a Biblical reference that suggests how to vote, then?
I looked at Psalm 2 this morning–and have read it countless times and always thought it appropo for all the tyrants who think themselves above God. God is in control, He does reign, He does confound the wisdom of the foolish.
OK, now what?
The only thing that has been coming to mind was when the Israelites were taken into captivity in Babylon, the rulers allowed them to worship God their own way. “That” kept the remnant moving for 70 years while “events” shook themselves out in Israel.
(I’m using the quotation marks because I believe God was in control of all those events).
I’ve read enough Russian and Chinese history to understand the church grows best under persecution–when people must decide if they truly believe the promises of God and then apply them to their lives under tyranny.
The enormous growth of the Chinese church the last sixty years is a testimony to people having to confront who their God is and what they believe.
But I like comfort. I don’t want to live under tyrannies like that if I can help it. I certainly don’t want my adorable grandchildren to live under such difficulties, even though I trust their devout parents will raise them with the recognition our safety, comfort and joy only come through the Lord.
I believe the church is weak in the US. Certainly a large number of people who claim to be Christians now to look to the state to meet their needs. That’s in error.
As I said last night, neither candidate comes close to being a spiritual leader. I think a Romney vote will give a little more breathing room. Obama has already shown his hand on religious freedom.
Vote the way you believe God is calling you.
But do you have another example in Scripture as to why I should not vote the way I think I need to vote?
LikeLike
Gentile rulers like Darius? Do you think all those “pagans” of the OT who hounded and persecuted the Jews knew God was working through them?
They meant it for evil; God used it for good in the lives of his people.
LikeLike
Good questions, Michelle. [See, people? These things can be discussed with civility.] I’ll try to get to a fuller answer later, but if God has defined good leadership, and has given commands to those who rule, does it not follow that we should *support* only those who intend to abide by his prescriptions? Consider Psalm 2. If God has instructed rulers to submit to the Son of God (and He has!), why would it make sense for us to advocate for office a person who decidedly does NOT kiss the Son? I’m sure you’re familiar with Mormon doctrine. Do you suppose Mitt Romney is familiar with it? I do, too. In violation of Psalm 2, he does not kiss the Son.
We all want peace and good for our children. But God’s commands come first, as I’m sure you agree. I alluded to Pharaoh earlier (and was roundly ignored by the guy or gal who prompted my allusion). Remember when he (Pharaoh) increased the workload of the Hebrews after Moses initially requested time and place for them to worship? Many Hebrews complained to Moses and wished to drop the whole freedom movement. They sought peace and good, but not according to God’s agenda. We shouldn’t make that same kind of compromise.
LikeLike
Michelle: I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your question at 5:12. Gentile rulers are given direct command in Psalm 2.
LikeLike
Solarpancake, the Bible, especially in Samuel and Kings argues first that anarchy doesn’t work and second that authoritarian kings are a danger to any nation. Beyond that it favors small government that allows individuals and churches a certain freedom coupled with responsibility. Our Constitution is widely regarded as one of high excellence, though it wisely makes no reference to the Judeo-Christian Bible.
In my view Mitt Romney has the character, virtue, and intelligence to best lead America. While I disagree with the theology of Mormonism, I regard your view that he “kiss” or view Christ the way you do as absurd. You appear to want America to become some sort of Bible centered nation that would inevitably lead to a form of theocracy, something I would abhor.
LikeLike
Yeah, so why is it absurd? Can’t you put aside the snide for a sec and season that speech with a little grace? Wouldn’t hurt if you’d cite a scripture or two when making an argument, either. I–and I hope other Christians–am as unconvinced by vague assertions of what’s “widely regarded” as I am by snide.
LikeLike
Ah, I guess I’m one of the “see people?” being (again) sarcastically –not civilly) chastised. 😉
Michelle makes excellent points. I, too, have read Ps. 2 many times, I read it again this morning before church in light of this discussion. I’m not seeing what you’re getting at, Solarpancake (I keep wanting to call you Solarpanel). I read it much as Michelle does.
The question we’re trying to pose here (because you seem to think there is some specific call in Scripture in this election) is — so, then, how do we vote? I know Democrats in my church (not sure how they’re voting, but possibly for Obama — one will vote for him for sure that I know of). I know Republicans who are Christians. I know Ron Paul adorers and also Christians. They’ll all vote as their conscience tells them and that’s how it should be.
But I don’t think it’s necessary to condescend to who see things differently than you do, accusing them of “dismissing” Scripture. If I’m missing a more direct message in the Bible of how I need to vote in the 2012 election, tell me where it is.
I’m voting my conscience — and I’m also voting in a way that I believe is wise based on the current conditions and choices we have before us in our country at this point in history. God will determine the outcome. As she points out, God often uses evil leaders for the good of His people and for His divine purpose.
And perhaps a bit of persecution will, indeed, do us good.
LikeLike
donna j: Psalm 2 issues a clear command for rulers to kiss the Son. How do you interpret that?
LikeLike
Rulers are all under God’s authority, whether they recognize it or not.
Good rulers are to be under Christ. That also allows for rulers already in place to come to that knowledge, that there is an authority above them.
I get it (what you’re saying) — that we can/should ONLY vote for a professing Christian whom we believe has authentic faith. While I would prefer a candidate like that — and I suspect the reason we don’t have one is due to the weakness of Christianity in the west — I do not see that as a call to “vote” only in that way when faced with a choice as stark as the one we have.
The Psalm speaks specifically to rulers. We are to pray for those in authority.
I’m not seeing anything beyond that.
LikeLike
I simply don’t think that bars us from voting for a non-Christian candidate who promotes biblical values — he’s not being elected King. If nothing else, as Michelle says, it gives us some breathing room perhaps.
Again, I’m not necessarily convinced Ron Paul is a Christian. He may very well be. But beyond that, I just believe many of his ideas are reckless. I’d never very happily vote for him. It would make me exceedingly uneasy.
LikeLike
So in your view, we should vote for a foolish Christian candidate (not saying that’s Paul, it could be anyone coming down the pike) than a wise non-Christian who stands close to our values when implementing policy?
Perhaps this one’s an easy call for you since you seem to like Ron Paul. But a whole lot of us, frankly, don’t.
LikeLike
I have no doubt that Jimmy Carter was a man with authentic faith.
He was a terrible president.
Ike Eisenhower had a Jehovah’s Witness background until he joined a Presbyterian Church in 1953.
Bill Clinton is a Baptist.
LikeLike
And Reagan seldom attended Church.
What other aspects are we use when deciding whom to vote for, Solarpanel? None? Is the person’s (professed, real or not) faith the only issue we are to consider?
LikeLike
Nixon was a Quaker by birth. Was he a believer? Do we know?
It makes sense to me to vote for the wisest viable candidate (again, one of 2 men will be elected come Tuesday) and then pray-pray-pray for their salvation, for their wisdom, for their ability to be honest and good leaders of all their people.
LikeLike
Arrg. Solarpancake.
See??? I keep thinking Solarpanel! 🙂
LikeLike
It simply stands to reason that if rulers are to kiss the Son, we should not support those who would be in violation of that command.
Chas, I didn’t say “if he’s a Christian, vote for him.”
LikeLike
Ron Paul is for legalising marajuana. I don’t know how he stands of abortion, but I suspect he wants to leave it up to the states. He likely has the same philosophy as John Stosell on Fox News. He wants to withdraw into Fortress America, if indeed, there were such a thing.
It is very difficult to get a good Libetarian candidate.
There are those who are fiscally conservative, but culturally liberal,
and those who are culturally conservative and fiscally liberal. These are more common. I want someone who is opposed to abortion and gay marriage and will not spend us into bankruptcy. I want someone who will respect the Constitution for Supreme Court appointees.
That’s hard to find.
Romney isn’t perfect, but he’s closest to that than we’re going to get.
I would have preferred Herman Cain.
I voted for Romney.
LikeLike
and donna j: I didn’t say, “if he’s a Christian, vote for him.”
LikeLike
Sooo, again, how do we decide how to vote?
I may hope my candidates & my leaders “kiss” the Son. Many probably don’t, heaven knows. Some do. Some will in the future.
I’m afraid we’re talking past each other at this stage. 😦
LikeLike
Charles, Ike joined the Presbyterian church in Washington mainly due to his view that the president ought to set an example. For most of his life he was at best a nominal Christian, though he turned out to be a great leader in war and peace.
He did know the Bible well, as his parents read from it extensively every day, and he had a phenomenal memory. He could recite a lot of Scripture from memory. While he, like Lincoln, wasn’t a man of formally deep faith, he was greatly influenced by the Christian religion.
I quite agree with your view of Carter.
LikeLike
Jesus himself spoke of dealing with the world by noting we need to be as wise as serpents but innocent as lambs. That means you deal with the world on the world’s terms while keeping your heart pure and confessed before God.
I, too, voted for Jimmy Carter–I was a new Christian and that sounded like a good plan, to vote for a man whose world-view mirrored my own. I was thrilled when he quoted from Malachi in his inauguration: “he has shown you, oh man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you: to love justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
But even though he was an Acad grad, he was a poor leader. His leadership made a lot of lives miserable and while he may have walked humbly before our God, he did not serve his people well.
Many years ago, I was in an auto accident. The car was totaled and my toddlers went to the hospital in an ambulance. My husband sat on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean and didn’t hear about the accident for several weeks.
Many urged me to hire a lawyer. I demurred because other than the destroyed car, we were fine. Ultimately, though, I decided I needed a consultation so I called my pastor and asked him the name of a “good Christian lawyer.”
“Well, Michelle,” he said. “Do you want a good lawyer or a Christian lawyer?”
“Don’t do this to me!” I wailed. I thought a little more and said, “a good one.”
That’s the counsel I got from a godly, wise Christian man, whom I’m sure is voting for Romney.
Probably holding his nose like me. 😦
LikeLike
We’re seeing a time in which presidential candidates all being professing Christians is changing rapidly. In the past, you almost couldn’t be nominated without professing to be a religious believer. And most knew the Bible well, it was something that families and schools taught as a matter of course.
Those days are slipping away quickly. We live in what is fast becoming a biblically illiterate culture. Atheism and agnosticism is quite acceptable. And so the nation could actually be faced in coming decades with electing (sometimes) candidates who profess no faith at all.
But I’d also have to say, too, that when “everyone” says they’re a Christian, you don’t know the genuine from the false. So there you go.
LikeLike
donna j: We’re probably talking past each other. I’m not sure whether or why you’d have thought I was advocating for just any ol’ guy who professes to be a Christian. That may account for some of the confused crosstalk.
We are to vote for the candidate who kisses the Son and exemplifies those qualities of a good leader as described ubiquitously in Scripture. This doesn’t mean we have to hold out for a “perfect” candidate–that mantra is a canard. God instructed Moses (through Jethro) how to choose good men to fulfill certain political duties. He instructs us how to select men for church office. We *could* infer, by reading over the criteria given in those circumstances, that we would have to hold out for *perfect* individuals to hold those positions. We don’t, though, do we? We recognize all men will be imperfect in executing their duties. But the common denominator is that they profess to know and love God, and by their lives and ability to apply Scripture (their espoused policies, in the cases of politicians), they give evidence that they fully intend to abide by God’s Word as their and the land’s ultimate authority (which doesn’t preclude a national constitution, etc., but that’s a different topic).
LikeLike
But I’d also have to say, too, that when “everyone” says they’re a Christian, you don’t know the genuine from the false. So there you go.
Doesn’t leave us much to work with when selecting elders and deacons then, eh, donna j?
LikeLike
Lawyers, like plumbers, and like everyone who existed everywhere, are called to be Christians. But lawyers, in their capacity as lawyers, aren’t specifically instructed to kiss the Son in the fulfillment of their duties as lawyers.
LikeLike
Should Christians have voted for Jimmy Carter *merely* because he seemed to have a sincere profession of faith? Not according to any argument I’ve made in *this* thread.
LikeLike
Solarpancake, I was referring (the context should have made that clear) to politicians whom we do not personally know.
LikeLike
OK, so how do we know if someone will “kiss” the Son?
Are there other things you or we should be taking into consideration when voting?
LikeLike
donna j: I can’t think of any other profession on earth where we can know more about a person in that role than of ‘politician.’ For the most part, they have extensive records and backgrounds for us to examine and evaluate.
LikeLike
If Ron Paul weren’t a write-in possibility (as he’s not for many of us who are Christians), what would your options be in 2012?
LikeLike
Sigh. OK. Now I know we’re talking past each other. 🙂
LikeLike
donna j: We can know this in the same way we know about elders and deacons, with the (in most cases) added information of a candidates political history. These guys have extensive records. I’m not sure what kind of detail you think I’m insisting we find out about them beyond such info.
LikeLike
How are we talking past each other? Do you believe the elders in your church “kiss the Son” in their respective lives? Why do you believe that?
LikeLike
There’s nothing about what I’m saying that requires psychic ability. While imperfectly, we can judge trees by their fruit. This really isn’t a concept foreign to Scripture.
LikeLike
The option for 2012 would be to dissent. That’s what I originally advocated in this thread. BUT, as I’ve also mentioned, we can still be very active in a host of other ways. In fact, I’d suggest casting a vote in the presidential election is one of the lesser effective ways of working for political change.
LikeLike
Seems to me that Psalm 2 is specifically talking to Israel’s rulers. It seems to be at least through verse 9, and probably thereafter. My version HCSV says pay homage to the Son in verse 12 (not kiss.) The principle can obviously be applied to all rulers, but I don’t think you can be dogmatic about it being a command for rulers of all countries.
LikeLike
I believe it’s more likely Psalm 2 has Gentile nations in mind, as, in the immediate context, David was God’s annointed against whom those nations conspired. Verse 2 in the HCSV reads
The kings of the earth take their stand,
and the rulers conspire together
against the Lord and His Anointed One.
And later, it states,
So now, kings, be wise;
receive instruction, you judges of the earth.
Serve the Lord with reverential awe
and rejoice with trembling.
Pay homage to the Son or He will be angry
and you will perish in your rebellion,
for His anger may ignite at any moment.
All those who take refuge in Him are happy.
Kings and judges (politicians) of the earth are to give reverence to “the Son.” That’s the Son of God. That’s an explicitly Messianic Psalm. That’s New Covenant age. That’s not just Israel.
LikeLike
“Pay homage to the Son or He will be angry.” Is that true?
LikeLike
SolarPancake,
“the real AJ: Do what you want with the sarcasm. You made a post accusing folks like me of being responsible for propagating a pro-abortion agenda. In light of that, I’d say my response was fairly reserved, no? I appreciate your call for civility. I’ll be curious to see if that’s enforced. Hey, it’s your site. Block or ridicule opposing ideas, if you want. Sounds like fun to me (that’s a little more sarcasm for ya!).”
What I did was ask an honest question. As gently as I could I might add as well. I’ve sometimes been unfair and unkind to Paul supporters, and I attempted to not do that again. You may be offended by the implications of a 3rd party vote with regard to abortion, but it’s a fair question. One you haven’t really answered. You cannot deny what your 3rd party vote would enable Obama to do in a second term with regard to abortion. You may be uncomfortable with it all, but the implications are obvious, and you shouldn’t get defensive just because you think it’s offensive that I asked. I just want an honest answer on how your brain gets around the consequences of your vote when your vote can be seen as enabling evil. I think it’s a legit question, and I mean no offense, but how exactly would one nicely ask it? If you chose not to answer, that’s fine. I certainly won’t hold it against you.
Now as to the last part,
I block no one. Yet
I don’t think I’ve ridiculed anyone, but an idea or two perhaps.
I censor no one. Unless you curse, no one has. Yet.
I’ve not banned anyone either, and hope I don’t need to.
Whether we agree or not, you’re free to post whatever you’d like, as long as you follow the rules. And 2 links are the limit per post, or you go to moderation. That’s to avoid the legion of spammers who hit this site daily, it’s nothing personal. To suggest I’d do such things to someone I disagree with has no basis in reality. It’s never happened.
And you call THAT sarcasm?
Pfffft……
Amateur.
😉
LikeLike
the real AJ: Show me the question in the following sentences:
I’m serious here, please explain to me the reasoning which allows you to think this obsolves your conscience from the pro-abortion, taxpayer funded agenda that follows? One which you cannot deny your involvement in helping to allow by not picking the only real alternative to that agenda.
You did not ask whether a case can be made that non-major-party voters contribute to a pro-abortion agenda. You asserted it to be undeniable. And I do deny it. And I deny there’s anything “gentle” in making that charge.
I don’t have to answer for something that’s barely tenable even as a logical possibility. Who we vote for as president is removed by numerous degrees from whether abortion is legal in the land. Aside from that, we’ve already tried getting Republican candidates to do our pro-life bidding, but to no avail. Our strategy has failed. I’m not sure what evidence you provide to the contrary. Certainly, a case can be made that our support for milquetoast candidates *has* lent momentum to the pro-abortion agenda, for what candidates have we elected who’ve ultimately displayed any respect for the pro-life agenda. I spoke a briefly to this above, so I disagree with your assessment that I didn’t do so.
You may have missed all the sarcasm in my earlier post (and now I’m confused as to why you initially seemed perturbed by sarcasm in the first place). I wasn’t *really* saying you’d censor or ban folks for voicing dissenting views from what seems to be the conventional wisdom here, only that there certainly *has* been ridicule directed that way…[to say nothing of your aforementioned claim that those holding such opposing views facilitate, by their voting practices, the murder of babies].
LikeLike
Solarpancake: I think someone may have mentioned this, or alluded to it, but this is not a Christian nation. It is one established on Judeo-Christian principles. There is no established religion here, so we cannot expect or demand that our leaders follow any particular belief. So far they have all made some profession of a Christian faith, whether it was Catholic (Kennedy) or Protestant (all the rest). So not to vote for someone who doesn’t follow a particular faith is the right of an individual. But to accuse others of allowing evil because we vote for someone who is not in line with one verse form the Psalms is ludicrous at best. There was no such thing as democracy in the Bible, so we have no scriptural precedent to follow. SO if you want to vote your conscience, do so, it is your right. If we decide to vote for a Mormon, leave us to our conscience.
LikeLike
Wait a minute. I just read your last post more closely, and tried to digest this (among other things):
I just want an honest answer on how your brain gets around the consequences of your vote when your vote can be seen as enabling evil.
Do you really want honest debate on this site, the real AJ?
LikeLike
Peter L (and you other guys, apparently):
This is the nature of disagreement among Christians on matters of Christian practice. I’m not dictating anything to your consciences beyond what I’m taking from my reading of the Bible. If you call that reading “ludicrous,” it would only seem appropriate to explain HOW you think it is so.
LikeLike
Peter L: Do you get the sense from the real AJ that, given how he thinks my voting choice will foster the pro-baby killing agenda in our county, that he’s “leaving me to my conscience”?
Wouldn’t this be a strange reading of Psalm 2: Rulers of all nations of the earth are to kiss the Son–to profess and exhibit homage to Him–but if the nation happens to be a democracy, the voters are entirely at liberty to vote for candidates who WILL NOT kiss the Son.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, I personally know two people who have voted third party the last several elections but are not doing so in this one–this one is too important. There may be a larger percentage of such voters out there than anyone is giving credit.
LikeLike
I don’t recall any election that wasn’t regarded as “too important.” Besides, that logic can go both ways. And don’t we trust the outcome to God?
LikeLike
Cheryl- Count me as one of those 3rd party-but-not-this-time voters.
Okay, SPC, go ahead and vote for whomever you wish. Just don’t condemn others for our choice (which is what you seem to be doing). You don’t know our hearts, we don’t know yours. I think you are taking one verse way out of proportion. If I feel that God will be honored more by my preventing the most evil president I can remember from continuing our country on the march to servitude to the Chinese (or Islamic fundamentalists) than who are you to accuse me of not being Christ-like in my choice? If I only voted for those whom I feel honored the Lord Jesus Christ, I would stay home most elections.
LikeLike
Hey, Peter L, maybe it’s just by virtue of me being on my side, but by my reading, if anyone has been accused of being less Christlike here, it’s me. Have you really overlooked the uncharitable language directed my way? And you could have at least shown me where I’ve made those accusations, myself.
LikeLike
Who says we *have to* vote? If tens of millions of Christians held out for godly candidates, maybe there would actually be more godly candidates on the ballot. But we’re not putting much pressure on the candidate pool by settling the way we’ve been doing. And as I already mentioned, there are other issues to vote on in every general election, and other means of political activism. I’m sure youse know this. You don’t need to keep repeating it like it’s an outworking of my views.
LikeLike
Saw one of my former elders at the church class tonight & were were chatting about the election. I asked him his take on Romney’s being Mormon. “I pray for him every day,” he said, “but it doesn’t affect my voting (for him).”
I may be in a minority here (I’m sure I am), but I don’t have to hold my nose to vote for Romney. I believe he might make a very good president. His Mormonism is not the stumbling block for me that it apparently is for others.
That said, I kept looking for “someone else” during the the primary season. But as soon as I’d start looking at one of the other candidates, they’d say something entirely stupid — or do something entirely stupid — and I more or less always returned to Romney who was my “default” candidate.
I wish there were a better crop of candidates overall. But I don’t think he’s awful.
LikeLike
But Solarpancake, you said you weren’t saying to only vote for someone who’s a Christian. Am I confused? Because that seems to be primarily what you’ve been arguing.
LikeLike
donna j: No. I’m replying to the “Jimmy Carter” response to what I’ve been saying. That is, I haven’t been saying that, if a guy merely claims he’s a Christian, vote for him. He must also demonstrate wisdom in applying the Word of God to the duties of his office–that’s part and parcel of honoring the Son in a ruler’s role.
LikeLike
Well, I’d say there was probably sufficient evidence that Carter was a believer. After he was in office, well, everything kind of went into a downward spiral because of his weak leadership abilities.
So he was a one-term president, probably thankfully. But I’d still say Carter is most likely a Christian, from what I can know of him.
LikeLike
In my last post last night, I said I would be answering AJ and others who posed comments to me.
After reading the comments that have come in since that time, I must say I am dismayed at the increasing level of vitriol I see here today, after yesterday’s mostly polite and respectful conversation. I have prayed to know the Lord’s will regarding if and when to speak, and what to say if I do, and I have come to the conclusion that I must bow out of this discussion so as not to get swept up in the turbulent storm that this thread became.
My only comment is to Michelle, a response to her post on November 4, 2012 at 5:10 pm. Michelle, thank you for praying. Your post was refreshing to me, and though I would love to discuss the scriptures with you, the time and place unfortunately cannot be here and now.
My prayer is that the calm that comes from peace in Christ will prevail here. May the Lord’s will be done, and may we all be found obedient to His perfect will.
Good night.
LikeLike
For better or worse, we vote … and then we wait, watch and pray.
While we do have a few clues, we ultimately don’t have the divine revelation of who will make a good (godly) leader and who won’t — and typically we have pretty limited choices.
But that is also under God’s divine sovereignty.
It’s not easy for any of us. But it’s what we have in the here and now (“already but not yet …”)
LikeLike
For those more interested in pursuing the topic:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Politics-Reformation-Government-Confessionalism/
LikeLike
Sorry, that link didn’t work. Try this:
LikeLike
donna j: I don’t dispute Jimmy Carter’s sincerity of Christian profession. I’m saying that it’s likely (although I never made a study of it) that given his poor performance as president, including his membership in the pro-abort Democrat party, he would have been disqualified as a decent candidate on the basis of his not responsibly applying Scripture to policy. I thought I had made it clear that it isn’t *merely* a profession of faith alone that qualifies one for office, but also whether his positions are informed by a proper respect for, and reasonable use of, God’s Word in his role as officeholder.
LikeLike
I dropped by to say hello and add my two cents yesterday, but apparently my comment is lost in the ether, so at the risk of being redundant, I’ll post again. I’m really enjoying the conversation the past few days. It’s good to see people enthused about their positions again. (And really good to see AJ back with power! :–) )
Last week, I did what I said I almost certainly wouldn’t do—I voted at an early voting station. For Romney. Hopefully the economy will have at least a brief uptick from a new president.
LikeLike
As I often do, I turned to the Book of Common Prayer. We said this yesterday during the Prayers of the People:
24. For an Election
Almighty God, to whom we must account for all our powers
and privileges: Guide the people of the United States (or of
this community) in the election of officials and representatives;
that, by faithful administration and wise laws, the rights of
all may be protected and our nation be enabled to fulfill your
purposes; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
LikeLike
Carter came along after Watergate — he was a breath of fresh air to many people who longed for more honesty and integrity in government. A peanut farmer who taught Sunday School had pretty wide appeal, both to Christians who typically voted more Republican and to Democrats yearning for a more moderate candidate as a way to get back into the White House.
I don’t think anyone thought he wasn’t a good decent man — and I also doubt whether we could say “Oh, well, he turned out not so christian in terms of policy after all” until AFTER he was president.
I’m just saying it’s often only in retrospect that we see good presidents vs. bad presidents. I’d say that’s probably true about Carter — I’m not sure there was anything in Carter as a candidate that would have been a red flag to Christians. Quite the opposite.
Part of how effective a president is depends on the man we elect, of course (some may seem that they will be good and true and and strong; then turn out to be not so much — or they may seem not up to the task before being elected but then grow amazingly into the office).
It also depends on the circumstances each president faces and those are often unpredictable. Some rise to the occasion, some collapse under it. There are simply a lot of unknowns when we elect someone new to lead us.
So essentially we all vote our conscience and wait to see how it all turns out.
LikeLike
And I’m not sure the argument against Carter in retrospect would be that he wasn’t very “Christian,” however one interprets that in terms of leadership.
I think the strike against Carter was that he was weak and ineffective — and that was something I’d say was apart from his Christianity.
So saying he would have been disqualified up front as a candidate because his profession wasn’t followed by his life (it was, actually) isn’t accurate in my mind.
It’s not always as black and white as we’d like, is it?
LikeLike
Clarification:
When I said his weak leadership ability was “apart” from his Christianity, I meant it was a separate issue altogether and not related to the issue of his personal faith.
LikeLike
I’m not sure there was anything in Carter as a candidate that would have been a red flag to Christians.
Nah, I disagree. I’m not inclined to research the matter, but I’m sure there was plenty in his record as a politician that would have indicated he made poor application of Scripture to his political views, if he attempted to make any application at all.
Or, you could prove me wrong by providing some of his pre-president background.
It’s beside the point, anyway.
LikeLike
Sheesh, donna j. I think I’ve been pretty clear on this. I don’t dispute Jimmy Carter may have been a decent man in his private life, and a good and upright man in general. I’ve been saying repeatedly that we should measure rulers as *Scripture* does–by observing their personal conduct AND (repeat: *AND*) how astutely they handle the Scriptures in the exercise of their offices.
LikeLike
But we can’t often see that until after they’re in office. What are we arguing about? I’m becoming confused. 😉 Are you just saying that in retrospect he wasn’t a good example of a Christian leader? Or are you saying that there was some way Christian voters should have been able to see this before they voted for him?
LikeLike
I don’t remember a lot about that election — he’d been governor; I don’t recall anything that would have stood out as a contradiction to his faith. But maybe I’m wrong.
If anything, his Christianity was a stumbling block to many of the more liberal elements in his own party.
He turned out to be a weak and ineffective leader, not up to the challenges that came his way in the 4 years he presided. Perhaps some of the Christians here who voted for him at the time can chime in on this one.
LikeLike
He may have been a great governor. Or, he may have leaned liberal. It’s really irrelevant. I’m not sure how a view of Jimmy Carter would negate anything I’ve been saying here.
LikeLike
donna j: I’m saying that I *suspect* there were things in Carter’s record that would have raised red flags for Christian voters. To update that scenario, I would say that it behoves Christians to *ASK* candidates to define their views on various issues of the day. Certainly, we Christians should request that information of those for whom we may cast votes. If and when candidates supply those answers, we make the assessment as to whether they display an aptitude for handling the Word of God *as relates to the office for which they’re running.* If they refuse to provide that information to the tens of millions of us Christians who should care about such things, they shouldn’t get our votes.
LikeLike
Again (fair warning: I’ve honed beating a dead horse into an art form), I just think it’s not always as black and white as we’d like.
And there are Christians who genuinely disagree on political matters, each citing Scripture.
Interesting quote I found from Carter who was recently (2012) interviewed on the Laura Ingraham show, however, regarding abortion:
“I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions and that was one of the problems I had when I was president having to uphold Roe v. Wade and I did everything I could to minimize the need for abortions. I made it easy to adopt children for instance who were unwanted and also initiated the program called Women and Infant Children or WIC program that’s still in existence now. But except for the times when a mother’s life is in danger or when a pregnancy is caused by rape or incest I would certainly not or never have approved of any abortions,” former President Jimmy Carter told radio talk show host Laura Ingraham on her syndicated program today.
“I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest. I think if the Democratic Party would adopt that policy that would be acceptable to a lot of people who are now estranged from our party because of the abortion issue,” he added.
LikeLike
That is beating a dead horse (with all due respect). Nobody can claim they espouse some infallible method of discerning who will be a good leader. Certainly, we Christian voters have supported some pretty poor ones using the strategy espoused by the majority of posters here (apperently).
I saw that quote from Jimmy Carter, made 31 years after he served as president. If I recall, he was less pro-murder than many of his fellow Democrats at the time he served, but he was still weak on the issue. I may try to research that, or I might not, because it would bear on whether what I’ve been saying here is right or wrong.
LikeLike
A cursory search found this on Jimmy Carter.
http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/November05/nv110705.html
It’s not too well-sourced, but bears further investigation.
The Washington Times provides this account of *candidate* Jimmy Carter in 1976:
Running for president in 1976 — just three years after the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision — Mr. Carter took a moderate stance.
“I think abortion is wrong and that the government ought never do anything to encourage abortion,” he said during that campaign. “But I do not favor a constitutional amendment which would prohibit all abortions, nor one that would give states [a] local option to ban abortions.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/nov/3/20051103-111740-7148r/?page=all
LikeLike
That is beating a dead horse (with all due respect)
See? You’re lucky I’ve had to go to work today. 🙂
LikeLike
For anyone interested, this gentleman does a better job than I do explaining why I think a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote. He avoids the abortion issue and consequences, but the points are much the same either way.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/wont-vote-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils-84254/
“I have a tremendous respect for the zeal and the objectives of some of the alternative parties. Although not in complete agreement with all of their positions, I’ve been honored to speak at the conventions of the Constitution and the Christian Party in the Tar Heel state. I’ve lobbied in support of making it easier for third party groups to get on the ballot in North Carolina. I strongly believe that they should continue to make their voices heard and not lose heart.
Nevertheless, I do not believe that this is their hour. To vote for a third party candidate this election, except to satisfy one’s conscience, will do nothing more than throw the election to one of the candidates of the two major parties. Unfortunately, in such a tight race as this one, I fear it will only help give the election to Obama.
I personally believe Christians should think very carefully about the prospect of another four years of an Obama presidency versus that of a Romney presidency. Granted, Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism is not Christian. It is a cult. But I agree with Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate and a Catholic, who said he looked for where he and Romney’s “faiths come together in the same moral creed” and vision for the nation. Mormons and Catholics are strong supporters of many of the same principles of morality as conservative evangelicals. In contrast, Obama and Biden both profess to be Christians (Biden, more specifically Catholic), but tragically have put forward the most anti-Christian public-policy agenda of any presidential administration in American history. Never has there been a presidency so preferential to Islam, attacked life, undermined traditional marriage and the family, diminished religious liberty, or snubbed the nation of Israel, like the current one. I do not believe it is in the slightest hyperbole to argue that to vote for Obama, or to waste one’s vote on a third party candidate, when such a candidate cannot possibly be elected, only further jeopardizes this nation to the probability of God’s judgment.”
As he said, this is no time for neutrality.
LikeLike
Yikes, the real AJ. I’d stick to speaking for yourself, even with your charges that folks like me facilitate murder of children. I can’t say I respect that fellow’s piece. “Satisfying one’s conscience” is a pretty important thing, would you agree? As Paul says, whatever is not from faith is sin.
As important as those various issues may be–Islam, marriage, religious liberty, etc.,–God laughs at rulers who thumb their noses at God over such things. But none of those items “jeapordize this nation to the probability of God’s judgment” as pointedly as failing to honor the Son:
Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
LikeLike
In case some haven’t noticed, we’ve had a few Republicans serve as president in the last few decades. And if you further may not have known, millions have babies have been killed during their tenures. Third party voters didn’t do that stuff.
LikeLike
Except that the conscience is a fickle thing. Sometimes logical and Biblical, sometimes neither.
LikeLike
You guys need to get your stories straight. So are we to vote our consciences or not?
LikeLike
Solarpancake, ‘you guys’ are individuals.
I’m saying that the conscience is not the only thing that you use and probably not as important as you make it. People do hideous things with a clear conscience. We need to constantly make sure it is in tune with the Bible.
LikeLike
For instance, many in our culture abort babies with a clear conscience. Many do go against their conscience and have serious regrets. Some don’t have those regrets until they come to Christ later in life or at least come to a better understanding of what they have done. As you come to a better understanding of what is right and what is wrong what your conscience tells you will change.
LikeLike
Solar,
Tomorrow is the election. The choice is yours, but first, consider this piece by Bill Whittle, if you will. Thanks.
LikeLike
Really, Fuzzyface? You’re telling me that conscience isn’t the only thing we use to make choices, and it isn’t as important as I make it? You may not have been reading this thread, but I’ve repeatedly mentioned various other moral instruments in addition to conscience throughout this thread. Man, you guys.
LikeLike
the real AJ: I’m 3:49 into that video and I hardly know where to begin. I’ve spoken to much of what this guy has said to that point of the video. Would you like to select one of his strongest points that I haven’t addressed and let me take a crack at it? Also, can you show me where he refutes my reading of Psalm 2, or where he explains how it’s more important for a politician to have a right view of marriage than it is that he have a right view of Christ? Or where he successfully defends the abysmal pro-life record of previous Republican presidents? If you will? Thanks.
LikeLike
I’ll give the guy credit, though, he did seem apologetic for any implication made that 3rd party voters and abstainers facilitate the murder of babies. I will give him that. It’s refreshing when people apologize for such bile.
LikeLike
“Man, ‘you guys’.” 🙂
Ha. I think this is exactly where we were when I left off.
LikeLike