Being a One-Issue Voter
I have been thinking a lot as of late about the pros and cons of being a one issue voter. Specifically, if an issue like abortion should be a proxy for the entire election. Therefore, I was encouraged that my friend Tony posted this article today.
I will highlight what Piper said as I think it right on:
Preacher/author Dr. John Piper:
…When we bought our dog at the Humane Society, I picked up a brochure on the laws of Minnesota concerning animals. Statute 343.2, subdivision 1 says, ‘No person shall . . . unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal.’ Subdivision 7 says, ‘No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal.’ The penalty: ‘A person who fails to comply with any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.’
Now this set me to pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment, which says that ‘no state shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law.’ Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it legal to ’maim, mutilate and kill’ a pain-sensitive unborn human being but not an animal?
These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil—even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.”
Possibly Related posts:
- Christian Fatigue on the Issue of Abortion?
- Nebraska Governor to Fight Abortion Laws
- A Lawsuit from the Grave: The case of Shanice Osborne born in an Abortion Clinic
- On the Proposed Anti-Spanking Law
37 Responses to “Being a One-Issue Voter”
Leave a Reply
About
Subscribe to Updates
Twitter Updates
- @JustinBuzzard Hands down Pillar's Edwards & then Lane. Ferguson's lil book is good as are Keller's & MacArthur's sermons.
- With him there is plentiful redemption (Ps.130.7). This is good for one who's sin is plentiful!
- We are officially in the South- Fried Chicken & Pickles @ the gas station register.
Recent Comments
- Gordan on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Tweets that mention John Piper on Sermon Prep -- Topsy.com on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Erik on Running from God and To God
- donsands on Running from God and To God
- Tweets that mention Running from God and To God- Irish Calvinist -- Topsy.com on Running from God and To God
Perhaps being a “one issue” voter really is not all what the world might think of as illogical or foolish. I think we can know a great deal about a man who believes that infanticide is morally neutral.
A German woman who was interviewed some time after all the Nazi atrocities were unveiled to the world said, “Well, he (Hitler) did give us good roads.” Parallel for today would be, “Well I don’t really agree with his stand on abortion, but hey, he might lower my taxes, increase my Social Security, increase my minimum wage…so I guess I’ll vote for him.” What a self-centered nation we are!
It’s strange feeling to long for God’s judgment and yet fear it at the same time–The book of Habbakuk could’ve been written yesterday in that regard!
The abortion issue forces me to exclude those candidates who either support it or who do little or nothing to end it. As a result, neither Obama nor McCain will get my vote next month. There are countless other reasons to be sure, but I have no problem being a “one-issue voter.”
“The abortion issue forces me to exclude those candidates who either support it or who do little or nothing to end it. As a result, neither Obama nor McCain will get my vote next month.”
Lee Shelton, if you’re so against abortion then to not support McCain right now is only going against your own interests (not to mention plain ignorant). He has a strong 25 year history of being very pro life and anyone who says otherwise knows absolutely nothing about John McCain’s record. Put it this way, anyone who says they’re pro-life and doesn’t vote for him next month against Obama isn’t really pro-life.
Teresa,
very well written comments…thank you for the encouragement.
Lee,
I’m right with you.
Stephen,
Since when do we characterize somebody as pro-life when they advocate the legalization of child murder if the child was conceived through rape or incest? McCain believes that child murder is okay if the baby was conceived through rape or incest–this is not pro-life, and therefore McCain will not get my vote. Furthermore, it is not pro-life to advocate doing research on aborted babies (stem cell research). Again, McCain advocates murder, not life. So, maybe you can justify voting for the lesser of 2 evils in hopes of an incremental approach, but I can’t. I am tied to supporting candidates who are opposed to all murder, so please dont judge negatively the brethren who are voting on principle instead of pragmatism.
That said, this really comes down more to living out the truth on this issue by actively taking stands against baby murder, not just voting republican every 4 years. It is about standing up and proclaiming that Christians will not stand by while babies are killed, but will raise up their voices in defense of these.
Well, when you get to Heaven maybe then you can vote for the perfect candidate. In the meantime, though, you will always only have the choice of voting for the lesser of two evils since there is no such thing as the perfect candidate. In this case, McCain is clearly the lesser of the two evils and whether he deserves our vote or not we need to vote for him for our future and for our children’s future.
“please dont judge negatively the brethren who are voting on principle instead of pragmatism”
I judge negatively the brethren who are voting for their ideals instead of what is practical. They say they’re pro-life, but by not voting they hand us on a silver platter a candidate who is far more liberal and far more pro-murder than any other presidential candidate in the history of this nation. That doesn’t sound very ideal to me.
All that said, I really don’t care what McCain thinks about abortion. He has promised on multiple occasions that he will only elect pro-life judges to the bench. Trust me, If Obama is elected, he will elect the youngest and most pro-murder judges and will delay the pro-life movement for at least the next thirty years – but maybe longer. Please don’t stay home on election day.
Stephen,
When you get your ballot, you will see 6 candidates running for president, not 2. 2 of those 6 candidates are pro-life. 3 are pro-abortion, and McCain is in the middle. I am called to vote for righteousness, not the lesser of 2 evils. We have had 35 years of voting for republican presidents and putting our trust in them to end abortion. 35 years when nothing has changed, and babies are still being killed. Roe v Wade was decided by a republican majority court. It is currently being maintained by a republican majority court. we cant put our trust in a republican to nominate justices who are pro-life when they say during the debate (see last nights debate) that they wont make abortion a litmus test. we must stop trusting in the pragmatism of republicanism and start trusting in God. If God’s people humbly trust in Him, and follow His commands to do something….this is how God will work to end abortion, not because we cast pragmatic votes.
Stephen, you can accuse me of not being pro-life, but I’d rather put my faith in God than government. Last I checked, He’s still in control no matter who’s in the White House.
Jim, I don’t buy that for a minute. There are going to be two serious candidates on the ballot, not six. The next president will either be Barrack Obama or John McCain. Once you understand that simple concept, everything else falls into place.
You think voting is an exercise in idealism. Voting is an exercise in getting the best result that you can in a given set of circumstances. And voting for a third party is, by default, throwing away your vote and allowing a worse candidate to take office because of a very narrow definition of what makes a good candidate. Good people of goodwill disagree on whether that’s a legitimate strategy. I’m more inclined to say the idea of politics is to acquire power by using your vote. Therefore, you want to empower the person who most closely reflects your values. And, a vote for a third party, while I agree with it in principle, effectively usually only gives you the worst candidate as a result. Trust me, especially this year,we want the best of two bad candidates.
This is the tension that Christians have to live with in this world. We have our ideals, which we all concur are good and right and true. And yet, we also have the practical world that we live in. Would I want to, intentionally, in the name of idealism, put into office the worst possible candidate? I mean, how does that stand up to your ideals? That’s not a very ideal situation. This is always a tension, I believe, probably, within any movement, but certainly within our movement, where you have Christians who want all or nothing and effectively get nothing because they’re not willing to be pragmatic and incremental and take what you can get at the time and work within that and hopefully then come back later to get more.
The other side, though, especially the homosexual movement, has been masterful at incrementally advancing their ideals and have virtually gotten all that they wanted. But, it’s taken them years to get it. The pro-lifers, many of them being, I think, overly idealistic, want everything or nothing, and it’s only recently that we’ve started to get something; for example, a ban on partial birth abortion. But, what would have happened if, twenty years ago, we started an incremental program? Where would we be now? When you have just such high ideals that, no, we’re only going to ask for an outright ban on all abortions, period. We want that… that’s the all. What have we ended up with? Even by your own admission nothing has changed. Well, that’s the reason why. It’s only until recently, when the movement has been so frustrated with their idealism that they’ve succumb to what they probably think is pragmatism out of frustration, that we’ve seen any gains. And I just think that’s the way it is. And that’s what makes heaven sweet.
And like I said, when you die and hopefully go to heaven you’ll get the benefits of perfect government from Christ as King. In the meantime, in this world, all you get to do is vote on the lesser of evils. Yes, God wants us to humbly trust in Him, but he also wants us to use our brains too. The two are not exclusive of each other.
Lee you said:
“I’d rather put my faith in God than government. Last I checked, He’s still in control no matter who’s in the White House.”
How perceptive.
I think Spurgeon said it best for me: “Of two evils, choose neither.”
My own conscience has led me to abandon voting for many years. First, because I believe that it makes no difference, practically or statistically. Second, because I do not believe in popular democracy, but rather, in a constitutional republic, and finally, because I believe I am giving credibility to a system that is corrupt. Instead, I vote with my feet and a picket sign, literature, writing, and teaching my fellow man.
It is interesting that the concept of “single issue voter” does not extend to “single issue politician.” One muse wonder why those who use their “Christianity” to gain votes, do very little to change the law on abortion when they arrive in D.C.. Is there the anti-abortion equivalent of a Wilberforce in D.C. today?
Michael, that’s funny because Spurgeon said it best for me too. During the General Election of 1880, a gentleman wrote to Spurgeon to express his deep regret that Spurgeon was voting and because he “descended from his high and lofty position as a servant of God, and preacher of the everlasting gospel into the defiled arena of party politics.” At this, Spurgeon replied:
“I vote as devoutly as I pray, and feel it to be a part of my love to God and to my neighbor to try to turn out the Government whom your letter would lead me to let alone.”
Michael, your quote from Spurgeon is taken out of context and has nothing to do with politics or voting which, judging by your comment, you know very little about. You talk about Wilberforce but even Wilberforce eventually learned to take what he could get in small increments. And if you think a politician such as Wilberforce would condone sitting at home on election day when there is such clear contrast between the two candidates then you really don’t know anything about him either.
Right now the presidential race is a virtual tie. If we pro-lifers stick together and vote the best we can (for McCain) I believe we can make a difference. The flip side of that is we sit at home on election day (or vote third party) and Obama wins and sets our own movement back another thirty-five years. What’s it gonna be, brothers?
Can you believe Obama is getting billed as Pro-Life? The propaganda machine is INCREDIBLE!
Jon, We are witnessing the slide of our civilization into moral depravity as we speak
Stephen,
You mistake my voting thoughts as idealism. Obviously, my ideal would be to have Jesus Christ for president, not Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr (the only 2 pro-life candidates on my ballot). Interestingly, Jesus Christ (my ideal candidate) has already won. This is why I am so concerned about you statement “I’m more inclined to say the idea of politics is to acquire power by using your vote. “…politics is not about acquiring power. Jesus Christ already has all power! Politics is about being faithful to God and to His moral law. It is a testimony to a lost nation when Christians vote as they should. Politics is also not about changing the nation. In fact, just the opposite is true…a changed nation will change politics. People often bemoan the politics of our day with various complaints, but there is no solution to be found in politics. The solution is the law of God and the gospel. The solution is to preach truth. It involves standing up against abortion as a church who stands for Christ and His laws. Sadly, most Americans want abortion to be legal (at least in some situations), and until we (the church) change their minds, they will continue to stand for murder as the depraved should be expected to do. How do ‘we’ change their minds? It is not us, but God…but He works through us in our preaching, actions, prayers, etc. Until that happens our nation deserves Obama/McCain. They fall in line with the thoughts of America (more focused on the economy/materialism than life). We must pray against Obama being elected, preach against it, speak against it, act against it and vote against it….but not think that McCain can save us from it. Following the law of God is the only thing that can end abortion, and this only happens through the gospel being believed and the whole counsel of God’s word preached.
McCain will not change anything. I say this because 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush and 8 years of Bush didn’t change anything. A 7-2 republican majority on the so-called Supreme Court hasn’t changed anything, and in fact a republican majority court decided both Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton to legalize abortion on a national level. Friend, do not put your faith in this party, rather put your faith in God and preach and act and pray. God will end abortion in this land when His church decides not to let it go on. So, dont argue about McCain versus 3rd party, lets wake up and act. Christians must act as servants of God, not hire Republican mercenaries against whom the gates of hell will prevail.
However, all of this does not excuse our responsibility to vote. Our vote gives us a small voice in this land. If Michael decides to waste his vote by not voting, then he will answer to God for that. It may not matter statistically but we are still called be good stewards of what we have (I believe that a vote would be a good application here). I dont see a Wilburforce in DC today, but that is exactly why we vote. We pray for the time when God will send in the next Wilburforce to change the land. We vote in a manner that seeks this. Incremental change can be sought by politicians (as Wilburforce did) when other politicians refuse to vote for truth. However, that does not give the voters a right to support a candidate who only wants incremental change when a candidate who stands for truth is available.
Stephen, just how bad does a candidate have to be to lose your vote? Where exactly do you draw the line? Or have you resigned yourself to always choose the lesser of two evils?
Jim,
No one has the time to respond to comments like that. All you do is bloviate, twisting and spinning while you pontificate. Try more complete thoughts next time.
Lee, before I answer your question I just want you to know that I am as Christian and as Calvinist and as pro-life and as conservative as anyone else on here. I also find myself losing my love of this country as the abortion issue weighs very heavy on my heart. America was once a great country, like a ship of discovery sailing straight and true to new lands. Then in 1973 its rudder was jammed and now it veers wildly on the seas of moral uncertainty. This country that put a man on the moon, now will not provide enough sustenance to care for its own children. This country has enough food to feed the world, but not an ounce of milk to spare for another child. Americans have the technology to satisfy any desire, but can’t bring themselves to slow down for nine months as another human being passes through their lives. This country promotes a culture of selfishness and death and tells its daughters that their lives will be wasted if they bring an unplanned pregnancy to term. Every variety of filth is tolerated and aggressively pushed with the complete support of the state – abortion, homosexuality, pornography – but this country does not tolerate the values of life, family, and human dignity. They celebrate the likes of Hugh Hefner, Larry Flint, and Howard Stern as reflections of the American spirit, but those who attempt to save the lives of unborn children and who wish to promote a culture that respects life are now treated as fanatics, threats to American freedom. Britney Spears, Eminem, and Madonna are held up for our children as heroes, but the names of America’s great men are now drug through the mud. We as Christians must be careful what we’re asking God to bless when we say, “God bless America.”
I also want you to know that McCain was not my pick in the primary election. He’s not someone I’m counting on to come “save the day.” And I don’t think future generations will look up to him as one of the great presidents in history. Having said that, McCain does have some good presidential qualities. Now, to answer your question:
“just how bad does a candidate have to be to lose your vote? Where exactly do you draw the line? Or have you resigned yourself to always choose the lesser of two evils? ”
I do have a line drawn. If I only had the choice between two pro-choice candidates, then neither one of them would get my vote. Actually, this is an issue I had to deal with a lot last year when we all thought Rudy Giuliani was going to win the republican primaries. Since he is an unashamedly pro-choice politician, he would never have gotten my vote against Hillary or Obama or anyone. Luckily, though, Giuliani never won any of the primaries and the candidate we did choose (McCain) has a long, proud history of being pro-life. Let’s see.
McCain has served in Congress for 24 years, and cast a lot of votes on abortion legislation during that time. His record is not merely exemplary — it is perfect. McCain’s votes on abortion really could not be any better. A campaign advertisement where I live in South Carolina says of John McCain: “Pro-life. Not just recently. Always. Never wavering.” The ad is true. Being battle-hardened in defense of life is a real plus. Twenty-four years of service at the national level — almost all of them in the Senate — make a big difference when we are talking about the next President. There is no need to speculate or to rely upon promises or take matters on faith when it comes to McCain and abortion. He has demonstrated himself an obvious pro-life candidate.
Even the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has given him a 75% rating for his votes on life issues. Most of that deduction, however, stems from his steadfast support for campaign finance reform which the NRLC maintains would “cripple the pro-life movement in the United States,” though John McCain as well as several others disagree, and even those deduction points didn’t keep them from endorsing McCain early on in the primaries. NRLC doesn’t just endorse anyone. But they endorsed McCain over Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Conversely, the National Abortion Rights and Action League (NARAL) has given him a 0% score for voting on matters of “choice” because he’s been on the front lines for so many years opposing their pro-murder ideology. But that’s not all.
McCain’s personal life further reflects his pro-life beliefs. Few people know that the McCains have adopted three girls from foreign countries, one from a Bangladesh orphanage run by Mother Teresa. But there is a little more to the story than is told. For one thing, there were two babies. Mrs. McCain brought home a second infant from the same orphanage. That baby became the adopted child of the McCain’s best friends. Second, Mrs. McCain did not go to the orphanage in order to adopt. While she was touring the facility, Mother Teresa unexpectedly said to her (in so many words): “If you do not take those two babies with you, now, they could die right here. But you can save them.” Cindy McCain did. I believe that there is a profound lesson here about what it means to be pro-life, a lesson which goes beyond the important (but obvious) fact that the McCains live by the same principles which lie behind John’s voting record. “Little Bridget” was not sought out by the McCains. She was not expected or planned for. She was an unanticipated gift whom the McCains welcomed, not because she was antecedently “wanted” by them, but because she was a baby, a unique and unrepeatable human being with a right to life because she is a human being and not because some other people’s plans include her — or don’t.
Look, if there were no real clear pro-life candidate then I would understand if no one wanted to vote this year or only for third party candidates. As it happens, though, John McCain is an obvious pro-life politician and don’t even get me started on his running mate, Sarah Palin. Contrast their records with Barack Obama’s or Joe Biden’s and I promise you that McCain looks like the virgin Mary.
The Democratic Party stands unapologetically for a woman’s right to choose. Since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, Democrats have trotted out one “pro-choice” candidate after another (and, not coincidentally, all but two have met with defeat). It would be an understatement to say that Barack Obama’s view is consistent with his party’s platform. Since he has joined the Senate he has received a “perfect” 100% score from the NARAL. NARAL Pro-Choice America has endorsed Barack Obama for president. By contrast, since his election as senator in 2004, he has compiled a 0% rating from NRLC on pro-life issues.
On his website, Barack Obama professes to be “a consistent champion of reproductive choice.” Amazingly, even this breathless statement might be an understatement. In fact, it would probably be fair and accurate to call Barack Obama the most “pro-choice” presidential candidate ever . . . EVER! Obama is a co-sponsor of the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA), a bill that would nullify virtually all federal and state limitations on abortion, including the types now permitted by the Supreme Court, such as parental notification laws and waiting periods. It would also make partial-birth abortion legal again. This bill would effectively cancel every state, federal, and local regulation of abortion, no matter how modest or reasonable. It would even, according to the National Organization of Women, abolish all state restrictions on government funding for abortions. If Obama becomes president and lives up to this promise, then everyone who pays income tax will be paying an abortionist to perform an abortion. The act would also abolish state laws that protect doctors and nurses from losing their jobs if they refuse to participate in abortions. This bill is so important to Barack Obama that he has promised, “The first thing I’ll do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”
Barack Obama also opposes the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion through Medicaid.
Most chillingly, however, is Barack Obama’s oppositon to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. While an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama voted against this bill three times (twice in committee and once on the floor). What is the Born Alive Infants Protection Act? Simply put, the law states that any baby born, whether naturally or by a failed induced abortion, would be accorded full rights of a human being, including receiving basic medical treatment so that it would not die. The law was proposed after nurses began testifying that babies being born alive after failed abortions were being left to die inside hospital rooms. These same nurses also testified that these infants being left for dead were not premature babies with no chance of survival but, rather, were at a viable age. I strongly recommend listening to Jill Stanek’s heart wrenching testimony (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9duXeLahkV4). Not surprisingly, when an identical bill was voted on by the Senate at the Federal level, it passed by a vote of 98-0, meaning lifelong pro-choice senators like Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid all voted for this measure. Inexplicably, Barack Obama failed to do so and spoke and voted against this basic humanitarian measure while serving in the Illinois state senate multiple times. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” because of a crisis pregnancy – hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.
This is where we as Christians have to draw the line. Right now we’re up against the most liberal, pro-murder presidential candidate our country has ever seen. He is so close to being our next president, but I can’t help but think with the polls being as close as they are that we can beat him in this election if we all vote for John McCain.
Lee, you asked me where I draw the line and if I’ve resigned myself to always vote the lesser of two evils. The answer is yes, I have a line drawn and no, I will not necessarily always vote for the lesser of two evils. My question to you, though, is does your candidate always have to be perfect and are you always 100% opposed to voting for the lesser of two evils? I’m not talking about choosing between two pro-choice candidates because I really believe, as I’ve made the case for it, that John McCain is pro-life. The biggest thing going against him is that he condones abortion in the case of rape/incest. While I disagree with him on that issue, I remember that rape/incest abortions combined are LESS than 1% of all abortions. So, yeah, at this point I’m okay with a candidate who wants to obliterate MORE than 99% of all abortions. Why isn’t that enough for you? Why couldn’t we work with that for now, and come back for more later to work on that last 1%? Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why not get McCain in there so that real conservatives like Sarah Palin will have a future in the Republican Party? And so what if McCain did say at the last debate that his judges would not receive a litmus test? That is clearly not the same thing as saying he would elect liberal judges and McCain’s own website states the exact opposite.
We Christians need to start asking ourselves some of these questions and wake up to the reality that the democrat party is raping our country in while we sleep (aka staying home on election day). If it’s not abortion and infanticide it’s their contempt for soldiers, their tax hikes, and their thirst for socialism. There’s a perfect storm brewing at sea and America’s rudder is jammed. Please! It’s no harder than realizing that her next captain is either going to be John McCain or Barack Obama. The question is, out of those two, which one is more likely to steer us out of the storm and which one is more likely to drive us into the thick of it? Once you settle that question, the question of whether or not to vote and who to vote for becomes very easy.
I’ve said enough here. If spoon feeding the truth off a silver platter to you people doesn’t get through to you then nothing I say will. If anyone else wants the last word, go for it.
It has been very thought provoking to read all the above comments…there are obviously strong feelings here but Stephen, (and this is a little strange saying since since I have no idea who you are aside from what you have written in this blog) I am grieved that you would write the things that you wrote to Jim in your last post. Assuming that you are a Christian, those comments are unecessary attacks and as a bystander reading the posts, unreasonable. While one may not necessarily agree with his statements, I believe that they are well reasoned and thought out. I would hope that on this blog there would not be the unkindness and harshness that one might see on other blogs…..”let our speech (and blogging) be with grace”
I guess when all your arguments fail it’s just easier to attack the person making the arguments and make them out to be a judgmental mean-spirit. What could I have expected from someone who accused McCain of being morally neutral on the issue of infanticide?
I didn’t say anything about Jim that wasn’t true. If you have a problem with me calling him out you should have thought about that before you called me out for calling him out.
“My question to you, though, is does your candidate always have to be perfect and are you always 100% opposed to voting for the lesser of two evils?”
Stephen, I fully understand the concept of total depravity and realize that all candidates are going to be “evil” in that they are fallen, sinful human beings. So, no, my candidate doesn’t have to be perfect.
But earlier you made the blanket accusation that “anyone who says they’re pro-life and doesn’t vote for [McCain] next month against Obama isn’t really pro-life.” Have you stopped to consider that there may be other aspects to the pro-life issue that you are overlooking?
The concept of preemptive war is also a huge issue with me. McCain supports it. He believes that we can invade a foreign country and kill its inhabitants even though they pose no direct threat to us. He supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq and would not hesitate to, as he so eloquently put it, “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.”
Lee,
It’s nice to see you have abandoned your original position that “The abortion issue forces me to exclude those candidates who either support it or who do little or nothing to end it. As a result, neither Obama nor McCain will get my vote next month.” You have forsaken the “abortion” argument and have now turned to the war in Iraq. So much for being a one-issue voter, eh?
The abortion issue alone is enough for me to reject both Obama and McCain. You used the term “pro-life,” which is a broader term than “anti-abortion.” I was merely addressing your absurd claim that if I don’t vote for McCain, I’m not really pro-life.
That’s so lame. The original post Erik made was about abortion. Your first comment was about abortion. All my comments were about being pro-life, and in context were about being anti-abortion. The abortion issue is the original “one-issue” not the broader term of “life.” I write 3,500 words arguing how McCain is clearly an anti-abortion candidate, and instead of responding to it with point by point arguments to the contrary you hurl cliches about the Iraq war? OOkay?
So now what? I can respond and build the case that the Iraq war was and is necessary, and write thousands of words about how the terrorists there definitely posed a direct threat to our nation, but then you’ll probably come back and say, “but McCain is in support of the death penalty (or whatever), so he clearly cannot be pro-life.” And then what? Am I supposed to present years and years of arguments in support of the death penalty only to have you come back and bring up another argument that has absolutely nothing to do with this post. If you don’t want to vote for McCain, that’s fine, but don’t pretend to be “anti-abortion” if you don’t, lest it give the rest of us a bad name.
You accused me and everyone else who refuses to vote for your candidate of choice of not being pro-life. I find that disingenuous.
As for a point-by-point refutation, why bother? McCain thinks it’s OK to kill 1% of unborn children and in your mind he’s still “pro-life.” You have also ignored the fact that he voted to confirm pro-abortion justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He co-authored the McCain-Feingold bill that makes it illegal for pro-life organizations to target specific pro-abortion candidates in campaign ads 60 days before a general election. He has refused to support the Life at Conception Act. He was endorsed by the Republicans for Choice PAC before the GOP primaries were even over because of his soft “pro-life” stance and his willingness to compromise.
You asked why his “opposition” to 99% of abortions isn’t enough for me. Well, I just told you why.
(And you may have noticed that I stuck to the main issue this time.)
Please be careful how strongly you present opinions and watch the tone of your discourse. What is clear is that the role of government, as God appoints it even in the time of Rome, is to punish evildoers and praise those who do right. Our primary responsibilities toward government are submission and prayer (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2, 1 Timothy 2).
Since, by God’s grace, we live in a country where we participate in appointing our leaders, I do think we have a responsibility to participate in a way that supports God’s purpose for government and then to submit to God’s appointed authority regardless of the results.
As we weigh how to make these decisions, certain issues are more transparently discernable as evil or good (abortion being perhaps the clearest example). It makes sense then that this would be a point of agreement with Christians. It would be wrong to cloud such a clear example as ambiguous. I think it would be foolish to ignore every other consideration, but that is my opinion (not scripture).
The Bible does not speak about how to vote to support good and confront evil, so it makes sense that there would be some discussion between Christians about how to go about this. However, this discussion takes place in the realm of opinion and not revelation so there needs to be some humilty in the tone.
Let’s not grow out of balance in our emphasis of the importance of voting. If we shout and yell at our brother in Christ and even win someone to our opinion about voting, have we accomplished anything for the glory of Christ? Have we done anything to damage it? Please consider carefully.
Matt, that is your opinion, and while I respect it and honor you as my brother I also have to respectfully disagree with you. I agree that the Christian’s primary responsibilities toward government are submission and prayer but before you go throwing around Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, it should not be forgotten that the same man who wrote Romans 13 also wrote four epistles from prison and that both Peter and Paul were executed for breaking the civil law. I’d get into what Francis Schaeffer and R. C. Sproul thought about civil disobedience, but Erik would probably delete it.
And by the way, just for the record, the scriptures are anything but silent when it comes to how to vote for the unborn. To be sure:
Proverbs 24:11
“Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.”
It is hard to imagine being obedient to this command if we’re not even willing to cast a vote against a pro-murder candidate once every couple years.
Psalm 82:4
“Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
Deliver them from the hand of Obama, maybe?
Proverbs 31:8
“Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute.”
What better way to speak up for those who can’t speak up for themselves than by voting for against the candidate who wants to kill them?
Isaiah 58:6-10
“Is this not the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter – when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before, and the glory of the Lord will be you rear guard. Then you will call, and the Lord will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: “Here am I.” If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday.”
This rather long passage describes what God says is necessary for a successful life. God seems to be saying that if we do these things which he describes then he will bless us greatly. What are the things he requires? None other than to “set the oppressed free,” “satisfy the needs of the oppressed,” etc. This is what it is that satisfies God. I don’t know how Christians think they can accomplish this if they sit at home on election day or vote third party.
Isaiah 1:13-18
“Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New moons, Sabbaths and convocations – I cannot bear your evil assemblies. Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands in prayer I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice. Encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. ”
Here God says that he won’t even listen to our prayers unless we “defend” the cause of the fatherless, etc. He also makes it clear that our religious duties are worthless unless accompanied by these defenses of the fatherless.
Matthew 25:40
“And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”
Surely a baby in the womb qualifies as among “the least of these.” If we rescue that baby, are we rescuing Christ?
James 1:27
“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to look after orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”
The question is continually raised as to how we can “look after” them if we won’t even for the candidate that has the best chance at setting them free.
James 4:17
“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”
Seems clear enough. If we know the truth (like who we’re supposed to vote for) and do not act upon it, we sin.
And trust me, Matt, those are just the verses off the top of my head. I could probably find more if this was an issue I wanted to research. Anyway, hope this helps clear up why I believe my conversation between me, Lee Shelton and all those other bozos isn’t just a difference of opinion but is actually the difference between obeying God’s law and disobeying it.
Lee,
Okay, let’s see here . . . vote for the man who wants to eliminate 99% of all abortions . . . or let the man who wants to increase abortions win?
No, wait. Let’s go over it again.
Let the man who wants to increase abortions win . . . or vote for the man who wants to eliminate 99% of all abortions?
It’s a good thing I’m not the only one arguing my side of this debate otherwise this would be really hard.
You believe McCain. I believe the facts. He hasn’t worked to end abortion and won’t if elected president.
By the way, the name-calling was a nice touch. You can have the last word if you want. I’m done.
Stephen,
I really enjoyed reading your response to Matt (until your sinful heart caused you to resort to name calling). However, you took all of those verses out of context to say that they are talking about voting. While voting surely can be a great way to live out many of those verses, it is not what the verses are about. The verses are about action, and this is what I pray that Christians will do instead of just voting…preach, pray, educate, stand up for the lives of the little ones.
Because I called somebody a bozo?!?!?! Oh get off of your high horse! As far as name-calling is concerned that’s as harmless as it gets. You guys were just looking for an excuse to end this conversation with me, and judging from the ignorance of your responses I can see why. Hope life is as good to you people as it will be for me when Obama has taken all our rights away.
Jim, if name calling comes from a sinful heart then I guess Christ Himself had a sinful heart when he called his opponents hypocrites, white washed tombs, and vipers.
stephen, if Jesus Christ showed up at a modern church (or blog) christians would probably accuse Him of being un-Christlike. lol
This is a rhetorical question for this whole stream of comments. Why?
I think you’re right, D. A. People have always stoned God’s prophets.
Bene agere et male pati vere Christianum est
Erich,
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your comment as well as your service to our country.
I’m sorry you had to serve in the Clinton administration but, I too, would like to thank you for your service.
Erich, your assessment is well thought out and logical. The abortion issue is enough to motivate me to vote for John McCain, but it is far from the only issue hanging in balance this election cycle. That fictional letter about the impact of not voting is chilling to say the least. Thank you for your patriotism, brother.