This election is important. Actually, all are important but I think that this one is carrying a lot of weight and no doubt, the World is watching. We have many issues as a nation, however. People can't pay their bills. People are hungry. People can't get the credit they want for the car that they want. People are sick of the status quo, sick of the War in Iraq, sick of their tax refunds and "sick of George Bush" (as one person said to me). So...what are the important issues then? Obviously people are going to vote because of their personal views on certain issues. These issues, as it seems, in all facets of media are: Economy, War, Taxes, etc. No doubt that the economy is on a lot of people's minds, but is that the best reason to elect a president?
I think people should vote on the issues that they agree with most (obviously taking in the issues they disagree with the most; for the betterment of society as a whole-not some personal agenda). For example, there are some things about Obama that I like. The biggest thing I like about Obama is his age. He's young and seems to have a good grip on the current social trends (if you send out a text message to announce your VP, you are up with the times in my opinion). I think that McCain is having to surround himself with younger people too (Palin, and others) so he can stay up on this stuff. I myself am a younger individual, called to be a Pastor in God's Church, and don't want to be counted out of anything simply because of my age. Sure I might make mistakes, but that is part of the learning process (not to insinuate that the Presidency is totally equivalent to a Pastoral ministry, but you get my point).
But this leads me to my major beef with Democrats, Liberals and Obama. Abortion. I hear people all of the time say to me: "you can't just vote on one issue" or something like that. Guess what? I'm not just voting on one issue. I'm taking into account that if someone does not stand for the LIFE of the Unborn, he/she is automatically disqualified for public office. We can argue all day about which tax system works the best, what strategy in Iraq would be best, and what to do with terrorism. But if you can't get the Life issue right, I am unwilling to give you my vote or even consider you for any position in leadership. Since Obama is "for women's rights" and not "for the rights of the unborn", he is automatically disqualified from becoming President. Which means that I vote McCain (who is for women's rights, just with a little more conservative twist to what that means) because he's the only other option and it just so happens that he is Pro-Life (and I agree with small government values, etc.). I'm a Bible-Believing, Jesus-Worshiping, Christian who is going to vote this year, not with my heart (Jeremiah 17:9), but with my Bible. Paul in Romans 13:1-7 talks about the governing authorities. He argues that they are there to protect the people. Are not the unborn people too? Is this not a moral issue like Slavery was? Answer: Yes they are people and yes it is a moral issue like Slavery.
This leads me again to another point. Liberals will say: My religious views believe that life starts at conception, but I can't force my views on other people. Okay, let's run with that argument and see where it goes:
I think that rape is wrong, but I wouldn't want to force my views on this sensitive issue. We should allow a man to use his body however he wants because he should have that choice.
I think that Slavery is wrong, but again, why would I force my views on someone? We should allow people to choose whom they want to be a slave and give them every right to do to him/her whatever he/she feels like doing because again, we wouldn't want to impose our views on others.
I think that child pornography is wrong, but again, we don't know (Scientifically) when a child really is a child and shouldn't force our views on others because they should have the right to do whatever they want.
Do you catch the absurdity in this postmodern thinking? We're playing with absolutes here. We're taking objective truths and compromising (i.e, 'being tolerant') so that we either 1) don't offend someone, or 2) don't force our religious views on others.
Question Mr./Mrs. Evangelical: Is this the type of person that you want ruining running your country? Someone who won't stand up for anything biblical, calls himself a Christian, yet belly-ups on these moral issues? If he can't get this issue right, then what other issues can't he get right? I don't know how we can say that abortion is not an issue to be concerned about. I've heard people say: "Well how can you be against abortion but for the war in Iraq"? That's a logical fallacy for starters. Second, let's not confuse the issues. When we start comparing Abortion to other things, we rabbit trail the argument and go off in another tangent. Abortion is clearly wrong and should not be tolerated. The Roman Empire was doing it and look what happened to it.
It's time that America gets back its moral compass. Nobody liked slavery, but all of the sudden we're okay with abortion? I don't buy it and I certainly don't buy a candidate who says that he is a Christian but won't grow a pair and say that abortion is wrong (pardon the euphemism). I'm not saying that McCain is on-fire for Jesus (to use some not-so-biblically-informed-evangelical-language). But the life of the unborn is more important than the economy and again, if you can't get that right, you don't deserve to lead our country.
10 responders:
It still sounds like you're voting on one issue, but I don't think there is anything wrong with doing that, especially when you give so much weight to that one issue.
You still need to address how abortion should be dealt with in the delicate cases of the woman's health, the unborn child's health, rape, incest, etc.
I agree that war and abortion are not equal, but it still needs to be addressed. Sure, McCain/Palin may save some lives if their administration is successful at decreasing abortions, but we can't avoid the fact that McCain also appears to be trigger-happy when it comes to the military. Lives that are lost during war are still lives.
I'm not voting on one issue. I'm voting on a lot of issues, it's just that since Obama has a resume that reads: 'baby-killer', he automatically is, in my opinion, not allowed to hold public office. With that premise being said, there is the McCain/Palin ticket left, who, in my opinion, have more to offer than Obama. That's all. Do I like some of Obama's stuff? Sure. Some. But I can not in good conscience put a man in office who is okay with over 4,000 babies being murdered each and every day 98% of which are by pure choice. We've killed more babies in one day than we've lost soldiers in Iraq and people at Ground Zero. Tell me what's wrong with the moral compass of Americans?
I don't think that abortions should be allowed in any circumstances. Some one does it on their own? Put them in jail...for murder. Punishing a baby for a man who raped the mother isn't the answer. Incest, still not the answer. If we're going to slaughter babies, we might as well kill old people who are quote: 'sucking tax-payers dollars'. The principle stands. And women's health? It is simply untrue that thousands and thousands of women are going to die if they don't have an abortion. I think we should do our best to save both lives and if the baby dies to save the mother, than we MOURN.
I'm against war if its not just. I do believe Scripture teaches a Just War. Whether or not you agree with Iraq being a 'just' war is irrelevant. Islamic extremism is a problem (everyone knew that September 12th!) and must be dealt with. I don't want a trigger-happy president, but it beats losing millions of lives by nuclear holocaust on our own soil. I'm afraid that the only thing that is going to bring this country back together is a nuclear bomb going off in one of our own cities. Maybe then people will get over this "there's not threat" bologna.
What do you think?
I don't know if it's "thousands," but there are certainly cases where a woman and unborn child will die if an abortion is not performed. I briefly dated a woman who, in a previous relationship, found herself in that position. After conception, the embryo remained lodged in her fallopian tube. In that case there was no way she could carry to term, so in order to prevent harm to the mother, her doctors were left with no other choice, but abortion. At the time I was dating her, it was still a traumatic experience for her and she was still receiving frequent counseling for it.
Regarding war, I have a hard time agreeing that any war is just. War contradicts the 13th Commandment and the Golden Rule. We've dug ourselves in a deep hole by poking or nose in business all over the world. Our country spends more on national defense than the rest of the world combined. We have military personnel in many countries and have used force frequently through the years. Perhaps if we had learned to keep our military at home most of the resentment we currently have against us would not occurred. I realize we can't change what's happened in the past, but I still feel that we have the option to be a leader and take the first steps toward nuclear non-proliferation and peace. It would be a longterm process for sure with setbacks along the way. We may not see results in our lifetimes, but we cannot achieve peace by bombing our way there.
One more thought...
Despite the vast difference between the Obama and McCain when it comes to abortion, the ever-common reality is that progress in the political process is usually extremely slow. If we look at GW Bush's presidency, he was probably overall more conservative than McCain, was fortunate enough to have two terms, and had the opportunity to appoint two new Supreme Court justices. Despite these things, he still didn't make any headway on abortion. In the end it will matter how pro-life McCain and Palin are if they, too, cannot make any headway? Even if McCain were given the chance to appoint one or more new justices, it is never a given that the new justice(s) will turn out to share the same values on abortion. McCain does like to fancy himself as a maverick after all.
If we entertain the probably most likely scenario that the status quo of Roe vs Wade will prevail regardless of whether Obama or McCain is elected, how then do the candidates compare? Does it change anything for you?
I don't understand who's side some people are on when they say you can't vote on one issue. If you call yourself a christian than vote on those principals regaurdless of whether you have faith that it can change.
I can vote on one issue if it means standing for the life that MY GOD has created.
A few things:
1. A whole lot of people liked slavery. It was amazing for the Southern economy...that's why the Civil War was fought, because they wanted to keep it. They didn't care about the morality because it fit the Southern morality. Even some Northerners were alright with it.
2. You said you're not just voting on one issue, and then proceeded to explain why you're voting on one issue. I'm confused.
3. You say that comparing abortion to Iraq is a "logical fallacy," yet in your comments you DID compare them. Why? And why do you have that offensive-to-veterans-who-served graphic on your sidebar if you don't want to confuse the issues? Isn't that a comparison between the two?
4. If you vote with a moral compass, how is McCain better, or even considerable? I am in the same boat that I both like and dislike things about both guys, but sin is sin...murder is not worse than idolatry is not worse than thievery is not worse than lust. So why is McCain getting money from all sides no questions asked (stealing, in it's own way), and causing political scandal in the process, not up for consideration? Is that not a moral issue as well?
I just don't understand this concept...[almost] blindly voting Republican to spit in the face of Liberals. I don't know what I'm going to do this November, but I don't know if this is my strategy.
You have to remember, my friend, that the only theocracy that will exist is when Jesus returns...we're not going to somehow weed out bad morals from the political system with our voting. America is NOT, and will never be, a theocracy, no matter how we vote. We can't force morality on people any more than we can by screaming how terrible they are to their faces and demanding they instantly change with little concept of why.
1. Just because people liked it doesn't justify it. If its a moral issue, you're either right, or wrong. There's no middle ground.
2. I'll help clarify. When we pick an issue like Abortion, my opinion is, since Obama is Pro-Choice, he is, as I stated, automatically disqualified from Public Office. Now I'm looking at the ballot without him as an option. Morality trumps everything. 4,000 babies who die each year is more of an issue than whether or not I'm going to get a loan for a house.
3. I simply compared them to show the fallacy. No confusion there. It wasn't a picture of abortion and the War, it was an allusion to what numbers of people are dying in different scenarios. Also, the "sidebar" widget is absolutely NOT offensive to those who served. It's a subtle way to say to liberals who are anti-military that while we are losing soldiers so we can be free to blog, we are also losing babies at an insanely large amount. I hear all the time (especially from Obama before this campaign) that the War in Iraq shoulda never happened, etc etc. Regardless of your view on that, we support our troops. Liberals (i.e., main stream media) say that we lost 'x' amount of soldiers, therefore the war is unjust. The problem is, they either 1) don't like bush, 2) don't agree with war (i.e., there is no just war) or 3) don't like their tax money going over seas for whatever reasons. Any soldier who dies should be mourned, but why aren't people mourning these millions of babies being aborted? That's the argument. I'm not comparing the issues, I'm extrapolating the stupidity in liberal thinking (i.e., moral confusion of issues).
4.) McCain is Pro-Life and he chose a running mate who is most assuredly standing for these Christian principles. That's why he's better. That's a no-brainer. And I don't disagree that sin is sin. Some sins are different (despite that poor theology in evangelical circles that wants to harmonize everything) and thus deserve some different attention. In other words, while a lie is just as bad as murder, the murder is affecting the life of someone else and their family. A lie does not leave someone dead (I'm aware that this isn't always true, but you get the point). There are sins that are of omission and sins of commission. And don't blame McCain on your allegations of "scandal". Obama's got far worse ties that McCain's ever had.
I'm not blindly voting republican so I am unsure as to what you meant when you said that.
And who said that anyone wants a theocracy? Just because we can't weed out bad morality doesn't mean we do our best to vote. The government works for the people. That's the constitution. But the problem is, it's gotten to a point to where it is "us" versus "them" and that's unconstitutional.
And nobody is forcing morality. We are simply exercising our right to vote based upon the God-given principles found in Scripture.
It was interesting being told I have poor theology without being told I have poor theology. :P
Let me get to the important stuff. I'll skip the passive aggression for now.
With regard to slavery, you said "nobody liked it." I was merely pointing out the exaggerated generalization that you made, not whether it was justified or right.
With regard to the disqualification, that did explain a lot and that process makes a lot of sense now.
Regardless of the stance on Iraq, or what connection or message is attempted by the ticker, it's a cheap shot. If it's not offensive, it's in poor taste at best. I understand the point being attempted, and I agree with it actually, but there are so many other ways to make it. Not to be too lighthearted but it's almost a "too soon?" type of situation. (Like on "the Office" or "Family Guy" where they make a political or social joke and then they're like "ooooo...too soon?")
I don't want to seem like I'm defending Obama. I'm not saying he's a saint with his ties, even though I have mixed feelings on the whole Ayers thing. But McCain has a nasty record, there's no getting around it. But who cares...they're both career politicians...it's basically par for the course at this point, as sad as it is to say, to have some shady spots on the record.
I didn't mean to imply that YOU were blindly voting Republican, but a lot of the blog alluded to the tone of "Liberals are bad...I'll show them!"
I know what the constitution is, silly, I took 8th grade civics. :P Regardless of what the Constitution IS, politicians have over the years taken an untouchable status for their wrongs. As a result, a lot of them just do what they need to get their jobs. It's not about the people for them anymore, it's about whatever agenda they have. I understand not all of them are that way, but let's face the fact that tons of them are. As a result, "us" needs to be against "them" because they are not doing their job the way the Constitution says they should, and it's our job to check them on it.
Like we talked about before (in real life! haha), intentions don't always translate well in blogs. I'm sure it may not have been the intention, but this seemed like a digital soapbox rant about how terrible America is and how we need to make it Christian now. I vote with God in mind myself, but the reality is that we can't expect to rant like this and simultaneously 1) get our point across to those who may not immediately agree, 2) sound different than the stereotypical "Christian Right," and 3) shed light on WHY we hold the values we do in a constructive way. We should be evangelically minded in everything, right? This is an area where time and time again, myself included heavily, where we fail because we come off as snarky and overbearing about how much better we are for our non-liberal morals.
No hard feelings man...I hope I'm not stoking the wrong kind of fire in either of us. Open debate is good, yeah? Makes you dig in your heels and really think about what you believe in and why. :D And with two guys that have passion about stuff, it can get hot quick. :P (That wasn't meant to sound gross, but it kinda did. :X )
No hard feelings indeed. :) It's funny though, you show up only when its something "controversial" or something you might completely disagree with. ;)
In all seriousness though, I don't want to be "hard and fast" on most things because it can prove to be unhealthy, but I refuse to believe that abortion should be swept under the rug. (Not saying that you believe that, I'm just saying that this is where I'm coming from in my post).
Maybe the ticker should be offensive. The Gospel is offensive. Morality in America is becoming more and more subjective and "numb", what's wrong with being a little provocative in your stance? It's not un-Biblical (I know where you stand on this because I read your post about it before...feel free not to comment again...lol...I know where you stand).
I'm not sure what "nasty record" you are talking about with McCain. I think at this point, we can agree that both candidates are not "good" candidates as it pertains to the traditional understanding of what a "good leader" may or may not be...
I think all people are bad...not just liberals. But the liberals I'm concerned with are the political ones who want atheistic communism in America. I know I'm stretching it a bit, but maybe you should listen to Mark Levin, Andrew Wilkow, Sean Hannity and other conservatives who think the same...I don't know. That'll help you know where I'm coming from :)
My rant isn't about how terrible America is...well...it is and it isn't. I love my country but my allegiance is to Christ and Christ alone. I refuse to compromise on moral issues like Abortion and that was all this blog post was about. It was a point by point reasoning about why I will not be voting for Obama. No big deal. No soapbox, no motives to crucify someone who doesn't agree...just a blog. I do not think that everyone should agree with me. I think everyone should filter things through Scripture and I don't think a lot of Christians do that. That's all.
Call it snarky, call it overbearing...I'm tired of being told by atheistic liberals (typically; either that or non-devote Catholics-Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, etc.) that Abortion is a choice and blah blah blah. To me, that is overbearing and snarky and I have a right to vote therefore I will do so.
No fire. Good debate. I don't think we disagree on a lot of things...but you need to blog your theology so I know where you're coming from ;)
No...theology I probably won't blog on. I will, as some of the fathers, "use words when I need to." I try to talk less and act more (which is hard enough), and when it comes to blogging, I use it for observation with a filter. The filter will be theology, often, but not always. And I actually DID blog a little bit about it in "Legalize Everything!" I will explain my theology here, in a concise way (hopefully), but first a few things...
The ticker IS offensive. But why and how are the questions that need to be up in the air. Like "how will a vet see this?" Because someone who got hit by an IED and lost a leg and held their dying friend during his last breath may find it a little more offensive that civies like us. And on that note, it'll probably make him not like "those Bible thumpers" that we can appear to be.
As far as the Gospel being offensive...there's a HUGE difference between Gospel being offensive and an offensive presentation of the Gospel. When you don't control how and why you say the things you say like the Bible commands (Psalm 141:3, Proverbs 18:21, etc.) you can do more damage than good, no matter how much truth is in your words. So be careful not just WHAT you say, but also WHY and HOW. I don't always see that consideration in your writing.
The McCain thing was about the Keating scandal, where he got lots of money and jet rides from a shady banker. He was let off with a slap on the wrist, but it's no better judgment than any other guy. Plus...who loses count of his houses?! And how does that appeal to someone without even ONE? Or losing the one that they barely have?
That's all I got on that stuff. Here's with the theology. I actually started typing out a whole bunch on things like eternal security and free will, but I figured I'd sum it up and say my theology focuses on the concrete. The things in Scripture that are solid and proven (Jesus' death for us, God's righteousness and sovereignty, Adam and Eve's fall). All the other floating issues I have things to say about, but you can't really say one way or the other, and as a result I feel they are distractions from the true task of letting people know who Jesus was and why He was here.
I'm not a Calvinist by a longshot, and I'm not Arminian either. I joked about it before...I'm a Christian. I don't feel like you can be fully a Christian and one of those at once, because it supposes you have a definite answer to an answerless issue. Answerless only because we can never get the eternal perspective we need to understand it until it won't matter anyway.
The role of the church is to be the Hand of God. To reach out and feed, care for, heal, and most importantly teach about the Lord and who He really is, not who the church's centuries of mistakes have misinformed us about. I feel like especially in THIS century, we have said a lot and done very little. A lot of the truth we spoke was doom and gloom, and because we didn't fulfill the loving-actions-end of our role, nobody cared. A lot of post-modernism is actually BECAUSE of the church...we shot ourselves in the foot by creating what would become our biggest problem. Kinda like America helping Afghanistan fight the Soviets.
Let's see...what else is there...nothing for now. Once again, gimme a call sometime. You have my number these days...NO EXCUSES! hahaha
Post a Comment