Will God Forgive Me if I Don’t Vote for McCain?

Yesterday a visitor to my blog left this comment for me (on, weirdly, my “My YouTube Videos” page): “How could any ‘christian’ [sic] even consider voting for anyone other than Senator McCain!”

In that challenge there’s much implied and assumed—but I doubt its author was looking for an in-depth conversation about, say, the differences between a democracy and a theocracy. She was being personal.

So, speaking personally: I like John McCain. I’m not thrilled with the way he’s handled this presidential campaign, but I believe that once in office he’d settle down and do a good enough job. I’m afraid I have to say, however, that what got me waving adiós to Mr. McCain was his choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate. There was no way I personally could avoid thinking that choice had a good deal more to do with McCain’s immediate need to get elected than it did with any long-term vision of his for getting America back on track.

When he first picked Palin, I thought, “Wow! Excellent way for Our Man John to snag disaffected Clinton women and the right-wing Christian vote he’s so thoroughly alienated. Sweet!”

Then I saw her interviewed, and realized that half the women who shop at my Albertsons (which, since I’m a house-husband, is about the only place I ever see anyone at all) are as prepared as Sarah Palin is to be vice-president of the United States—let alone president. (And I know that’s not true—or fair. It’s probably only a third. Kidding! It’s a fourth.)

I could be wrong about that. Yesterday I thought sautéing onions and mushrooms in canola oil instead of olive wouldn’t compromise the flavor of my spaghetti sauce–and I sure was wrong about that. But whaddaya gonna do? Life is a series of judgment calls. You gather your information; you decide; you execute; you hope you did the right thing; if you didn’t you try to fix it.

In matters of consequence we Christians, of course, add to that first step, “Ask God.”

If, when you ask God for whom he wants you to vote, the answer you receive is, “Vote McCain!” then you can tune out the media, because you’re definitely decided.

I personally won’t be voting for McCain, because I fear the lack of judgment I believe he’s too often shown during his current campaign. But if God does tell me to change my vote, you can trust I’ll have a “McCain/Palin” sign in my front yard faster than you can say, “This way to heaven!”

Until then, all I can do is all any of us can do, which is make my best call according to my best lights. I’ve got good friends—real friends, people of God whose judgment I’ve come to respect and rely upon—who are voting for McCain. I’ve got dear friends who think Obama is the bomb. We sometimes get together, all of us, and we talk, and exclaim, and expound. And after a long, heartfelt prayer, we all return to our homes and loved ones. And all along the way each of us hopes and prays that this country, which we so passionately love, is going to be all right.

(Postscript: After I wrote the above, I clicked on to the website of The New York Times. And there I saw today’s headline story [Powell Backs Obama and Criticizes McCain Tactics] about how, on this morning’s Meet the Press, Republican Colin Powell had endorsed Obama. A bit from the article: “Mr. Powell told Tom Brokaw, the host of Meet the Press, that he had been disturbed in recent weeks by the negative tone of Mr. McCain’s campaign …. Mr. Powell, who was secretary of state in the first term of President Bush, also said that he was concerned about Mr. McCain’s selection of Ms. Palin as his running mate and had come to the conclusion that she was the wrong choice. ‘She’s a very distinguished woman [said Powell], and she’s to be admired, but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president.’”)

 

Follow-up to this post: Beyond The Christianization of Abortion.

 

Related post o’ mine: Does the Holy Spirit Vote Republican?

About John Shore

John Shore (who, fwiw, is straight) is the author of UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question, and three other great books. He is founder of Unfundamentalist Christians (on Facebook here), and executive editor of the Unfundamentalist Christians group blog.  (In total John's two blogs receive some 250,000 views per month.) John is also co-founder of The NALT Christians Project, which was written about by TIME,  The Washington Post, and others. His website is JohnShore.com. You're invited to like John's Facebook page. Don't forget to sign up for his mucho-awesome newsletter.

  • Liz

    Will God forgive you? Gee, I don't know, John. You're going to be voting for a guy who voted to withhold medical care from babies born as a result of botched abortions. I can't imagine that God would be too pleased with that.

  • http://suddenlyatheist.wordpress.com/ morsec0de

    I don’t know if your God will forgive you John. But I won’t forgive you if you do vote for McCain. ;)

  • http://rightplaceandtime.blogspot.com/ Colleen

    Hey John and Kat!

    Glad to see how you have been able to find a little more time together since John took a “rest” from blogging. Really, he has recently narrowed down his activity by only discussing religion and politics.

    Video blogging remains purely playful, so my hat (which is actually an item I never wear) is off to ya!

    My decision so far in the upcoming election is based on 2 things. Integrity of character and most impressive record.

    John McCain is a man of integrity and even if he is not the model of perfection and could be smoother for the camera, he prooved himself when noone was watching and that’s good enough for me.

    As for Sarah Palin, the first fermale governor of Alaska. She has a solid walk with God and has more more guts and beauty that any woman I have seen come on the political scene in decades.

    Before you criticize my opinion let me say this one thing, Sarah has raised the bar of this election just by agreeing to the nominiation. It is a fact that men become more competitive whenever they have to compete with a woman. So if McCain and Obama have become a little more fiesty since the Republican convention, you can credit that to Sarah Palin. I think you have even become a little more fiesty yourself John. Your comment about women at the grocery store was very sexist and bad form. Shame on you! She deserves a little more respect than a broad based comparison like that. Gee one minute I’m pushing a grocery cart…the next I’m Vice-President, “How’d ya suppose that happened?” As the first female Governor of a historically male dominated state, that speaks volumes to me. My older sister was the fist class of women allowed into a Maritime Academy in NYC back in the late 70′s. Let me tell you, that class had to prove themselves 24/7 and could never let their guard down for one minute. Many were hoping they would not succeed. If Obama and Biden get in…all I can say is I hope those two “good old boys” better work plenty plenty hard for the people of the US. Mavericks like Sarah and John don’t come around everyday. We’ll be watching closely!

  • Just wondering

    I’m pretty tough on women who expect favoritism because of gender. Just like race, gender should be irrelevant. I’m one who believes in judging by the “content of the character,” as MLK, Jr. said.

    However, I’m starting to wonder. Although I’ve never been one to look for or expect sexism, racism, or the reverse of each, I cannot for the life of me figure out why similar experience levels and resumes are treated so differently during this election. How can a 1st term senator running for the top of one ticket be given accolades because of smooth oratory, while the 1st term female governor of a state — who is not running for the top spot — be completely dismissed?

    Edited interview clips cannot fully tell the story of a person’s intellect or abilities; I imagine you’ve experienced that personally if/when reviews of your work have taken statements out of context. All 4 of the candidates have made significant verbal gaffes during the campaign, but some are considered serious and demonstrate lack of intelligence, while others are ignored.

    It’s very painful to watch such a double-standard taking place.

  • http://ww.sheppardministries.com Greta

    I wish I were an American…..I would vote Mccain-Palin….Obama is smooth talking….. I don’t trust anyone who only has head knowledge! McCain has been there and done that when it comes to understanding war and international negotiations. Sarah Palin has integrity….Biden appears flimsy to me…. However, it is God who sets up kingdoms and brings down rulers. I wonder what He is thinking about American politics?

  • http://rightplaceandtime.blogspot.com/ Colleen

    This video interview with Geraldine Ferraro re “the lipstick war” a month ago, sums up the racism and sexism by politicians nicely. http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/09/11/geraldine-ferraros-view/

    Sorry for my typos earlier. I was typing at daffy duck spitting speed. :)

  • http://suddenlyatheist.wordpress.com/ morsec0de

    Greta,

    I don’t want to turn this into a huge political debate, but I have to respond.

    “Sarah Palin has integrity”

    Please give me your definition of integrity.

    Someone who uses her political power to solve person vendettas does not strike me as someone with integrity.

    Someone who accepts the blessing of a priest who drove a women from a town because he accused her of witchcraft does not strike me as someone with integrity.

    Someone who refuses to answer direct questions, from the press or at a debate, does not strike me as someone with integrity.

    And someone who lies about their political opponent, accuses them of hanging around with terrorists or being a religion they are not in order to scare voters does not strike me as integrity.

    So perhaps you’re using a different definition of the word than I am.

  • Seriously?

    As someone with a degree in political science, I have to laugh when people mourn the “negative tone” of campaigns. Serious discussions about issues are not to be avoided; they are healthy and necessary.

    Here’s a little story to illustrate:

    Once upon a time, we were all gliding along on the Titanic (economically, socially, etc.).

    There were two captains vying for the right to guide the ship through the dark waters of the night. (Yes, it’s an odd setup, but go with me here. :-)

    One captain (1) saw an iceberg ahead on the current course, and said, “We need to slow down and change directions; otherwise, we will hit the iceberg, and it will tear a fatal hole in the hull.”

    But the other would-be captain (2) said, “I’m not sure if that’s really an iceberg up there, but even if it is, to keep things fair, and arrive on time at our destination, we should actually increase our speed and hit it full on. The iceberg will be shattered, and all will be well.”

    Captain 1 was clearly concerned: “I’ve sailed these seas for years, and I can see the iceberg, and I know our hull cannot withstand any contact with it, let alone hit that iceberg head on.”

    Captain 2 took offense: “Why do you have to be so negative? Why are you criticizing me? I’ve explained my brilliant plan quite well.”

    Captain 1 said: “This isn’t about you personally. And even if the steps you want to take as captain sound eloquent, your plan will cause our ship to sink after we hit the iceberg.”

    Questions:

    Is it “negative” to yell, “Iceberg ahead”?

    Is it a personal attack to say, “Your plan will sink us?”

    We are currently choosing a “Captain” (President) to guide the ship of state. We do not have a higher job to fill than President. We are looking at resumes right now, and we’re listening to 4 to 8-year plan proposals.

    Campaigns are not for wimps, and tough talk is a given — because political arguments are needed to uncover the real issues and the real solutions.

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    Seriously: I’m afraid I’m not sure what point you mean to make via your Titanic allegory—but, for sure, we all understand that political campaigns are, by their nature, “tough.” But there’s “tough,” and there’s shamefully, baselessly toxic. One’s barely okay; the other is a natural affront to normal, everday decency. But, as you say, typically in such engagements it’s all gloves off.

  • Mike Boyce

    I have many issues of concern in this election, but I’m an idealist, and it is coming down to the ideals of basic freedom and liberty vs socialism. Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi may very well enact the Fairness Doctrine, which will basically sound the death knell for Christian and Conservative talk radio. Mr. Obama is soundly anti-Second Amendment and I do honestly believe that the disarming of America would become a reality. But, the most troubling feature of the Democrats, and especially the Democrats controlling the Senate, the House, the White House and most likely the Supreme Court, would the the totalitation nature of their government and the damage that would do to all who disagree with Socialism. And finally, the coup de gras is the anti-God anti-Christian policies of the Democratic party and the special interest groups they garner votes from and look to support for. This last point is the most troubling to me when I hear of Christians supporting Mr. Obama.

    Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin both seem to be persons of charachter, and Mr. McCain’s proven charachter is without question. Mr. Obama’s charachter is defined, in my opinion, by his association with persons of apparently poor charachter, lyMr. Ayers and Rev. Wright. His association with Mr. Resko also is a negative. Add to this Mr. Obamas indications of a policy of appeasement toward avowed and vocal enemies of America and Israel, and his obvious lack of education and knowledge of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns and the Surge which at this time appears to have wound down the major action in Iraq and his management of America’s armed services is severly in question.

    I am concerned with the economy but the Republicans are not solely to blame and to be honest, my pocket book comes second to the principles of freedom, liberty, Christianity and strong self-defense. I don’t see Mr. Obama or the Democratic Party standing for any of these principles, plain and simple. In my idealistic view, I too must ask, how could a Christian vote for the party who seems bent on the persecution of Christianity and removal of God from our culture?

  • Bob Hunsaker

    I’m astonished at your thoroughly unbiblical analysis of McCain almost as much as by what appears to be a complete absence of analysis of his competitor. You are supporting a candidate who openly fights for the unhindered right to kill children be they newly born or unborn. You are supporting a candidate who will grow the federal government’s influence much further beyond its already-intrusive state. You are supporting a candidate who will do much to eliminate a church’s right to hire and teach biblically. You support a candidate who has systematically buried the record of his academic and legislative past – for what reasons are too simple to guess.

    Simultaneously, you seem to have bought the big media portrayal of Sarah Palin, who just happens to be more qualified for president than does Mr. Obama. She has accomplished more than has Mr. Obama. What about the early interviews at Saddleback Church do you not understand? Since biblical values loom paramount, which candidate aligns best with such values? Pray for discernment, brother (James 1:5).

  • http://angelbearoh.wordpress.com angelbearoh

    If He doesn’t forgive you, we’re both in a lot of trouble!

  • Seriously?

    Describing someone’s alliances and their ideology is part of appropriate political discourse.

    For example, if a presidential candidate had written a positive book review on something written by Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic bomber, I would want to know that. I would hope that candidate would be aware of the ramifications of supporting the views of someone who thinks it’s STILL OKAY TODAY to bomb clinics — because I do not support domestic bombing as a solution to any problem in our country, regardless of the agenda. I abhor violence.

    Vile political attacks are “a natural affront to normal, everday decency,” and I do not support them in any way. But free speech is a tricky thing.

    I wanted to be sick when I heard a vitriolic, unsubstantiated attack on national TV that Mr. Palin “probably” “abused” his daughters. It’s beyond disturbing to see pictures of activists smiling while wearing T-shirts that say: “Sarah Palin is a ****.” I was afraid for my first amendment rights when I heard callers to a non-partisan, Jewish Chicago radio host try to intimidate him for interviewing an author who questioned their candidate. (The campaign had time to send an e-blast to tell people to shut down the radio station, but the same campaign couldn’t be bothered to send a representative to clearly debate the issues in a rational way.) But I support free speech, when I respect it and when I don’t.

    And the most vile of all, the “Kill him” statement (mentioned by Senator Obama in a debate) was investigated thoroughly by the Secret Service, and it seems to be an urban myth, thankfully.

    If you know of vile statements from the right, I’d like to be made aware of them. But I will not agree with a label of “negative” or “vile” for statements that address true issues of policy or ideology. They are two different things.

  • http://www.1truebeliever.wordpress.com wickle

    Well, John, I’m going to avoid answering any of the comments because you know how much I hate arguing politics.

    I’m pretty sure that God will forgive voting for or against Sen. McCain. (My endorsement still goes to Joe Schriner, by the way.)

    I think you’re right about Gov. Palin. I kind of liked her at first … you know, before I actually knew anything about her.

    I am very disturbed by the number of Christians who think that the Republican Party is a Christian organization — maybe a parachurch or even its own denomination. Worse yet, those who seem to think that the Church is a branch of the GOP.

  • Mark Lattimore

    Though I won’t be voting Obama, I appreciate your forthrightness. Though both an Evangelical Christian and a Conservative Republican, I have grown tired of the politicization of Christianity. The Republican Party does not have a monopoly on Christianity in the US and, for the record, the US does not have a monopoly on Christianity througout the world. It is often asked, “Is God a Republican or Democrat?” The question is an attempt to coopt God for political advantage and has no place among reasonable Christians. So, though I disagree with your choice for president, I appreciate the fact that your decision is based on substance and born of genuine reflection.

  • http://fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike (FVThinker) Burns

    @’Seriously?’: The first amendment has to do with separation of church and state, not free speech. On the former, I am very, very afraid that the first amendment would be further eroded under another GOP term.

    @’Mike Boyce’: Supreme Court appointments are very possibly THE single biggest impact that a president has. Our Constitution is ONLY what the Supreme Court SAYS it is and appointments here are LIFETIME and can well outlive a fleeting presidential term. My great fear is that one more religious conservative justice would have every presented case decided in the light of a theocracy. Already we have profanely bigoted statements like this coming from the bench:

    “With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.”

    (This from a 10 commandments / courthouse case)

    It was Scalia along with three other justices effectively said that unless you are a monotheist, you can be disregarded.

    As far as Palin: Here we have a woman that spent here entire adult life in churches that preached end-times theology. We have her on video with the opinion that our involvement in the middle-east is God’s plan. We have her on video participating in church rituals and prayers about Alaska being a refuge during the End Days. We have her on video saying “she is seeing things happening” (which I took to mean things lining up for Jesus’ second coming. Palin’s church calls themselves the ‘final generation’

    Readers here span a range of religious sensibilities. I expect that some of you believe that Christ’s return is imminent (in our lifetime). For the rest of you more pragmatic types; do you really want a Sarah Palin that close to the nuclear launch codes? This is not abstract. Actuarial tables give McCain a 1 in 5 chance (or worse)of not being able to complete his first term… giving us a President Palin. Do we want our nuclear arsenal accessed because Sarah Palin thinks she if fulfilling biblical prophecy? Seriously! Can there be anything more frightenting than someone with that power to act on voices in their head?!?!

  • http://www.kellykirbyfisher.blogspot.com Kelly

    Abraham Lincoln once said, “I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord’s side.”

    To be honest, while I will vote for a president this week (I am voting early) – I am concerning myself more with my local and state level politicians. Those are the people who can make a difference.

    I like Sarah Palin. Do I think she is ready to run the country? Maybe not…but, I honestly don’t think McCain or Obama are ready either. One thing I do love about Sarah Palin – rather than sitting around Starbucks – with all the other moms – complaining about things she thought needed to be changed…she stepped up and got involved in making those changes happen. That’s what we should all be doing.

    Let me give you another example, my 17 year old son was involved in a car accident in August. The young girl (who is 25) did not have a driver’s license and ran a red light – hitting him so hard it flipped his Chevy Tahoe (which means she was speeding, too). She was given 2 tickets. She has hired an attorney to try and “get out of these tickets”. I am mad. MAD. I have contacted my state representative and several other local politicians and am ready for a fight in June 2009. (Yes, the court date is 10 months AFTER the accident – which is ridiculous, too).

    Anyway, I have several family members and friends (all Christians) who tell me – “it’s not worth the fight”, “just let it go”, “do you really think you can make her pay the consequence for those decisions”…and my response is “HELL NO I won’t just let this go”. The reason? My husband and I have purposefully taught our son that with every decision you make comes a consequence…good and bad. It’s about responsibility. It’s an integrity issue. It’s time for a change. The reason people keep breaking the law is because they can. There are no consequences. This is an issue of principal. It’s worth the fight.

    It’s time that we, as believers, quit thinking that the Godly thing to do is just “silently pray about it”…that if we somehow stand up for what’s right – that we are damaging our Christian walk by not being gracious or merciful. I think God is more disappointed that we are not standing up and speaking up – for Him, for ourselves, for our kids and our families! It can be done in a very God honoring way!

    I think D. James Kennedy said it best (in his book, “How Would Jesus Vote”) – “Christians have failed to fulfill their responsibilities as citizens in this country, and we have allowed this great blessing of a godly nation to slip through our hands.”

  • http://http:fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike (FVThinker) Bur

    @Liz: Do you know why Obama voted against that bill?? BECAUSE THERE WERE ALREADY LAWS ON THE BOOKS TO PROTECT THOSE BABIES! We are not in a contest to see how many laws we can get on the books.

  • Wanda

    I see that you did'nt say one thing about all the moral issues facing this nation and us as christians. Based on God's word and how he chose kings in His word, I have to say that God would rather someone with less experience be in office than someone who supports the murdering of babies, and supports men having sex with men and women having sex with women. Thats just mentioning two of many moral issues. Based on these two issues alone(which is enough) I don't see how you or any christian can vote for obama. You did'nt use one example fom the Bible or scripture to support YOUR reasons. We should'nt be following a multitude to sin. Sad to say, but it is leaders like you who are causing the failure of many and possibly the failure of this country. The blind shall lead the blind and they both shall fall into the ditch. God please help us all!

  • http://http:fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike (FVThinker) Bur

    LOL! Do you hear that John?!?! It is YOU that is responsible for the failure of this country!! I don't know how you can sleep at night. :-)

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    I usually do have trouble falling asleep at night. But then, to soothe myself, I sacrifice a black cat, troll the Internet (if not the nearby 7-11) for effeminate teenage boys, and stomp on the head of one of the child's dolls I keep on hand for that purpose. Then I usually doze right off.

    Wanda: I didn't quote the Bible to support my choice of vote because: A. I explained my reasons for voting as I will, and B: I've yet to hear any assertion, no matter how outrageous or vile, that someone somewhere couldn't use a passage in the Bible to support.

    Believe me, Wanda, I'm as Christian as you are—your "shall"s and ominous proclamations notwithstanding.

  • Jennifer Poore

    I only have one comment, John McCain isn't perfect, he's a human being like the rest of us, however he doesn't promote abortion which is a definite sin. So if you are not voting for John McCain and you claim to be a Christian, then I am left to assume you are not voting at all. Remember only one being is with you in the voting booth…GOD!

  • FreetoBe

    Gee, John, you really started something here! I think Kelly has it right, it's more important who we select at the local level. Presidents can promise all they want but can enact few, if any, changes to laws. Look at Mr. Bush's promise to remove women's right to choice from the lawbooks. In 8 years, that has not happened. However, there are a lot of voting Americans who think the abortion issue is the ONLY criteria for choosing our leader. I have been following the campaigns and debates of both parties since they were nominated and find something admirable in both of them. It will be a hard decision, but people like Wanda and Jennifer, above, certainly aren't swaying many undecided voters to their side.

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    No, they're not, of course—and they don't care, because they are filled with the fire of conviction. And, like any sane person, I actually share their core sense that abortion is … horrible. Of course it is. No one SUPPORTS the murder of babies; the very assertion that people who vote for Obama are in favor of people murdering babies is so stupid it wipes out the rules of normal engagement. Such people never want to have a real conversation; they just want to yell at you about how much better they know the mind of God than you, and how wrong you are, and how surely you're going to hell. In the end, with such people it's always about hell: who's going to hell, and why, and when, and how. I think sometimes, for some Christians, it's too easy to sacrifice the relatively abstract love of God for the immediate drama of the fury of hell.

  • Wanda

    I did not say that in anger or hatred, but truly in broken heartedness as tears roll down my face. I do not wish to argue. It does no good, besides we have to answer for every vain word.

    When I stand before God, I can only give account for my own sins, I cannot give account for yours.

    You don't have to respond, I will not be on here again to see it.

  • http://suddenlyatheist.wordpress.com/ morsec0de

    John, did you mention something about drama?

    Strange, looking at Wanda's post, I just don't see it…

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    Oh, well, then, never mind. (But in case you DO come back to look—because people always say they won't, but do: Nice answer! And it wasn't fair of me to use you personally to represent a whole body of people; it was a convenience I didn't take the time to construct my way around. [Also, I used to have a reader/responder named Wanda, who was WAY rabid about All Things Godly. I think I too quickly assumed that was you---but, looking back on your answer, I think you may be a different Wanda. Or you've mellowed admirably.] Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful response, and God bless you.)

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    Morse: Wanda said, "…God would rather someone with less experience be in office than someone who supports the murdering of babies." Claiming that Obams supports the murdering of babies strikes me as a fairly dramatic thing to say, thangaverymuch.

  • http://http:fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike (FVThinker) Bur

    @'Seriously?': After I posted, I realized that they were one and the same. I erroneously was thinking that freedom of speech was separated. My bad. Thanks for pointing it out.

  • http://fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike (FVThinker) Bur

    I cannot resist commenting on this recurrent phrase "murdering babies" used even by our enlightened, liberal Mr. Shore. Could there be a phrase that is MORE divisive and simple?

    In the range of embryonic development, we have a fertilized egg (zygote) at one end and a sentient being that can survive outside the womb at the other. Some of you here claim that destroying the zygote is the equivalent of sneaking into a nursery and popping a cap in the forehead of the Gerber baby. For those of you that have the intellect to see the difference, you are being disingenuous by using such an inflammatory term as "murdering babies". There are arguments to be made against abortion (and types of abortion) and you are better served to use arguments that demonstrate some understanding of physiology instead of dogma.

    http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-p

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    I QUOTED someone else using the term, Mike, and did so pejoratively.

    Sigh. I should have stayed on my break…

  • Just wondering

    John, you said:

    "And, like any sane person, I actually share their core sense that abortion is … horrible. Of course it is. No one SUPPORTS the murder of babies; the very assertion that people who vote for Obama are in favor of people murdering babies is so stupid it wipes out the rules of normal engagement. Such people never want to have a real conversation [...]."

    Actually, I do want to have a real conversation, and I won't consign anyone to hell for voting for someone. :-)

    My thoughts:

    If a candidate's voting record shows consistent, unwavering marquee support for a specific, hot-button issue (whatever it is), doesn't a vote for that candidate imply support for that general world view as well?

    For example, no true pacifist would ever have voted for George Bush because he made attacking terrorists literally the hill he would die on, if necessary. Hillary Clinton, when first lady during her husband's first term, tried to lead universal health care, and though it was rejected, she went to the mat for it as a core belief of hers at that time. I think Barack Obama has made it pretty clear that the abortion issue is extremely important to him and to his core supporters. For example, he said one of the first things he plans to do is to sign FOCA – Freedom of Choice Act, that would guarantee a fundamental right to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8), and he also wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which lets taxpayers avoid having their tax dollars pay for abortions across the board (while now we pay for just those abortions where rape, incest, health of the mother are at stake).

    I'm not a single issue voter, and I never will be. I don't vote based on abortion alone, but it does factor into my decision-making.

    I do look at a candidate's level of devotion to an issue. Senator Obama has made it clear that he doesn't just want to preserve abortion rights as they are, but finds it important expand those rights significantly. He co-sponsored a bill to make it easier for industry to create human embryos for medical use; the downside is the discarding of those potential lives that would be necessary as a result of tests that are completed. He even voted against including women who have crisis pregnancies to have their unborn child's health care covered by the SCHIP program, while his friend, Democratic senator Ted Kennedy voted for it.

    Abortion seems to be one of those marquee issues for which candidates have one of these three positions:

    1. Strong opposition

    2. Middle of the road "leave it as it is – it's a necessary evil," or

    3. Unwavering support and expansion

    Based on track records and public statements, John McCain seems to be strongly opposed. Barack Obama seems to fit into the unwavering support and expansion viewpoint. And voters seem to responding strongly to those policy views, from what they can tell about the candidates. You don't appreciate the harsh language being used by those posting on your blog (and I get that), but I think the above facts are driving the emotional reactions on both sides.

    I hope that qualifies as a "real conversation." :-)

  • http://odgie.wordpress.com odgie

    John,

    This discussion made me tired. It’s why I don’t like to get into political discussions on my own blog.

    I understand why you are voting for Obama, just as I understand other believers who are voting for McCain ~ I think that it is important to recognize (as I am sure that you and *most* of your readers do) that there is no political candidate who is God’s choice. As you said, we do the best we can.

    I have been all over the map during this campaign. I was all about McCain until he began running one of the sloppiest, most error-prone campaigns in recent memory, up to and including his selection of Palin. I am still considering Obama. However, I am beginning to lean towards Barr. Not because I buy the libertarian position (I don’t) but because he is the only candidate who hasn’t robo-called my house scores of time and choked my mailbox.

  • Seriously?

    Just to clarify, Mike (FVThinker) Burns:

    *** Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution ***

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    It certainly does! Awesome. I can’t BELIEVE the time people take to … well, in this case, make a point on a blog. Excellent work. (I knew I was going to catch it the moment I wrote “Such people….”

    Anyway, yes. Right. This is the beginning of what could certainly become an enriching conversation. I’m afraid I personally won’t be having that conversation with you, because so much of what you’ve said here needs, to my mind, so very much clarification and then further exploration and so on and on and on and on. For instance, just your question, “…doesn’t a vote for that candidate imply support for that general world view as well?” would take forever to parse through, you know? Just the phrase “general world view” is bound, sooner or later, to trigger a 50,000 word exchange and analysis that would wade and splash and leap (and invariably drown) in semantics and philosophy, to name but two pools.

    Too much for me.

    I just personally appreciate Obama’s position on abortion: It’s a tragedy; no one casually decides to have one; I’m comfortable with the idea that ultimately—given privacy, given our long-cherished separation of church and state—deciding for a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body falls outside the proper purview of the government. I wish no one ever had an abortion. It’s a total nightmare. I just don’t see enhanced governmental invasion of our privacy as the answer to that nightmare. I REALLY like the idea of concentraing as many of our resources as possible on doing everything we can to ensure unwanted pregnancies never happen in the first place.

    You and I agree that abortion is a terrible, terrible thing. We only differ in what we think the most effective solution to that problem is. Which never seems as great a separation to me as I know it sometimes does to others. We have differing ideas about the means, but agree on the end. That’s the important thing.

  • http://fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike (FVThinker) Burns

    @John Shore: I can’t dissect your sentence into the proper parts (subject, object, etc), but re-reading your quote that included “murdering babies”, I think it could be easily interpreted two ways. The entire statement clearly was pejorative, but the “murdering babies” bit could be read both as your position or mocking someone else’s position. Can we call it a draw?

    …and yes, abortion is horrible, but there are worse things…such as knowingly forcing a child into poverty, addiction, or disability.

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    Yes. Sure. Perfect. Whatever. No offense–but don’t care. Hope you don’t either, really. I’m sure you have more of a life than that. God, I hope so.

  • http://www.kellykirbyfisher.blogspot.com Kelly

    Well, I’m only voting for a presidential candidate this year so I can complain for the next four years. That’s how disappointed I am in all the candidates this year.

    My feelings are – by golly, if you don’t vote – you don’t have a right to complain.

  • http://www.todayscoolnews.com Brian Shields

    John…

    Two things. The best moment in the Colin Powell interview on Beat the Press in which he endorsed Obama was when he said Obama is a Christian but what if he were a Muslim?"

    —-

    Gen. Powell: "Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no. That's not America. Is there something wrong with a seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion that he is a Muslim and might have an association with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

    I feel particularly strong about this because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay, was of a mother at Arlington Cemetery and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone, and it gave his awards – Purple Heart, Bronze Star – showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death, he was 20 years old. And then at the very top of the head stone, it didn't have a Christian cross. It didn't have a Star of David. It has a crescent and star of the Islamic faith.

    And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan. And he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was fourteen years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he could serve his country and he gave his life."

    —-

    I'm going to finish this post by quoting yet another radical document, the Constitution of the United States:

    ———-

    "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

    ———-

    The Constitution said it. I believe it. That settles it.

  • Paul

    Let me start by saying that I don't like either candidate. But Obama's stances are so far from my Christian beliefs that it is impossible to vote for him. First of all, socialism is wrong. You do not take from one group for the sole purpose of giving to another. The Bible says that we should give, but that is not giving; that is redistributing. The Bible says, "if a man does not work, then he should not eat." We are responsible for each other, but that is not the way to do it. I could go on forever describing how bad an Obama presidency would be, but others have probably done that for me. I cannot vote for someone whose whole world view is directly opposed to the Bible.

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    Brian: That’s the EXACT same part of Powell’s endorsement that riveted my mind and heart, too. It was EXTREMELY good.

    NICE quote from the Constitution!!!! (And totally … trenchant, actually, final comment there.)

  • Richard

    Paul,

    There's nothing inherently anti-socialist about Christianity. Indeed there are a number of Christian Socialist groups who may disagree with you. Such as: http://www.thecsm.org.uk/

    But Obama is not a socialist politician. He isn't fighting for worker ownership of the means of production. From the UK perspective, he'd be centre-right, and has received support from senior Conservative politicians here such as David Cameron and Boris Johnson.

    And redistributive taxes are not a solely socialist policy, they can been seen as a strong way to placate the masses, to prevent revolution and to maintain peace and order, making strong capitalist sense. The recent history of the Poll Tax in the UK is a good example.

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    Holy cow, Tavdy. Did you actually WRITE all this? This is really … one amazing comprehensive, super-articulate, finely crafted … blog comment. You didn't write this JUST for this blog, right? This is … like, some PAPER you turned in somewhere? And got an "A" for???

  • tavdy

    Lol no – it's just that American politics is so much more interesting than British politics. Well, unless you count the rather amusing current bitch-fest between David Cameron's right-hand-pillock George Osborne and the House of Lords' newest member, Baron Mandelson (Yes that Mandelson) over five meetings Osborne had with a Russian oligarch in an attempt to get a £50K donation. This is at a time when the oligarchs' debt-fueled industrial empires are crumbling around them. But that's more a case of amusingly ironic farce than anything actually serious.

    TBh I just get a little annoyed of seeing the same old trite anti-Obama comments, most of which are either irrelevant, blatant lies or spun so badly trying to actually get to the truth is like sitting no a giant spinning top for an hour – all you'll get is dizziness and a headache. I also get annoyed by similarly spurious of the claims made against McCain and/or Palin, such as that Todd Palin is a current member of the Alaska Independence Party (he isn't, but he used to be).

    And no, I didn't get an 'A' for it (Unless you want to give me one). However you get an 'A' for the first three chapters of "I'm OK – You're Not" – I honestly don't know whether to laugh, cry or nod sagely in profound agreement when reading it. Unfortunately trying to do all three both weird and hilarious, and therefore distracting, so I try to avoid them.

  • WT

    $150 million dollars collected by the Obama campaign just during the month of September is obscene.

    1. He first pledged to use federal matching dollars, and then completely reversed himself because he didn't want to agree to spending caps as required.

    2. He tells us he cares about poverty in our nation and in the world.

    People are putting such hope in him as an example to this nation, but when he sets such a horrible precedent, where will spending on the next election be? A billion dollars per candidate?

    Obama should be refusing to spend more money on his campaign out of conscience. He's being a hypocrite.

  • tavdy

    “Mr. Obama is soundly anti-Second Amendment and I do honestly believe that the disarming of America would become a reality. “ – Mike Boyce

    Given the recent spate of violence against Democrat supporters in states like NC and TX, I’m inclined to agree with your concerns here – and I don’t think I’m the only liberal coming round to that position either: some Democratic voters are already buying guns for self-protection against the less enlightened of the pro-gun lobby. Of course this just increases the likelihood of people dying.

    [/sarcasm]

    Unfortunately I was serious about liberals buying guns for self-protection – it’s already happening in several of the battleground and red states. Personally, I’m undecided on the issue – banning guns doesn’t stop killings, it simply means that killers resort to blades instead – and knifing deaths can be just as unpleasant, if not more so.

    “But, the most troubling feature of the Democrats, and especially the Democrats controlling the Senate, the House, the White House and most likely the Supreme Court, would the the totalitation nature of their government and the damage that would do to all who disagree with Socialism.” – Mike Boyce

    If Congress is currently biased towards the Democrats, it is because the American people elected more Democrats than Republicans to Congress. If they elected more Democrats, it’s because they believe they will do a better job than the Republicans. That’s the way democracy works – everyone gets a say.

    In addition, the US Supreme Court was, until George W Bush’s nomination of Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, divided equally between conservatives, liberals and moderates. Currently the court is divided between 4 conservatives, 2 moderates and 3 liberals*, thus claims that the Court would be swung in favour of liberals would really mean it would be given balance between the two sides once more. As it happens, it is unlikely that any conservatives would step down during the coming presidency, so I do not see how Obama could be expected to bring balance to the Court – let alone swing it in the liberals’ favour – if he is elected, which is what you suggest. On the flip side, one liberal (Stevens) almost definitely will step down. If McCain is elected and follows the example set by his predecessor, the Court would have 5 conservatives, 2 moderates and 2 liberals – which I’m sure you’d agree is imbalanced.

    Finally, regarding socialism, the US is thirteenth on the Economist Group’s Quality of Life Index, and twelfth on the UN’s Human Development Index; in both cases all the nations that outrank the US have socialist-capitalist hybrid economies. Several nations – Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland Sweden, Australia, & Finland – are above the US on both lists. Of the top 25 cities on Mercer’s Quality of Life Survey, all 25 are in countries with socialist-capitalist hybrid economies. The nationalised health services found in most other Western countries, such as the UK, Belgium, Canada and Poland, typically cost less than 2/3 the cost per person of the US privatised system, and they all outperform it on key benchmark figures like life expectancy, cancer survival and infant mortality.

    In addition, the current US financial crisis was caused, in part, by the lack of regulations on the derivatives market – a hybrid socialist-capitalist economy would typically include those protections. The main reason the hybrid economies are also at risk is because of heavy investment in the US, as can be shown by the near-collapse of the UK’s Northern Rock just over a year ago. Incidentally, I’ve seen some reports that say some US economists believe that the EU will take over as the world’s leading economy once the coming recession has passed; since the EU already has a significantly larger economy ($16.8trillion vs. $13.8trillion) this is an eminently achievable goal for Europe.

    “Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin both seem to be persons of charachter, and Mr. McCain’s proven charachter is without question. Mr. Obama’s charachter is defined, in my opinion, by his association with persons of apparently poor charachter, lyMr. Ayers and Rev. Wright. His association with Mr. Resko also is a negative.” – Mike Boyce

    Mr. Obama’s link to Mr. Ayers was, to my understanding, purely professional and – at best – tenuous. They served on the board of the same charity for a period during the 1990s; for Mr. Obama to disassociate himself with Mr. Ayers at that time would mean stopping his involvement with an charity working to improve education in the Chicago area. While Mr. Ayers has also campaigned on behalf of Mr. Obama during the mid ’90s, it would be naive to automatically assume that means there is a close link between them – all it tells you is that Mr. Ayers preferred Mr. Obama’s policies to those of his opponent at the time, and felt strongly enough to take action. Given that both are politically active and (at the time) lived in the same area of Chicago, it would be equally naïve to expect them to have had no contact whatsoever.

    I would be at least as concerned, if not more so, at the decision by Mr. McCain to choose as his VP candidate the wife of a former member of a separatist organisation.

    I did believe that Mr. Obama himself had made it clear he doesn’t agree with all Rev. Wright’s opinions, but that he valued the man for other advice he had given in the past. It seems to me that Mr. Obama is trying to avoid isolating anyone from the political process – something which the Republican party has tried to do in several states through its use of foreclosure lists to deny people the right to vote. Unless you’d like to reform the American electoral system until “only the right people can vote”? That seems like a return to the Jim Crow laws to me – preventing citizens from having a voice in the democratic process is not democracy, irrespective of how abhorrent their views might be. I haven’t yet heard of Mr. McCain publicly rebuking racists comments that have been made by his supporters.

    Re. Mr. Rezko – I suggest you investigate Donald R. Diamond, the Arizona developer and McCain campaign donor, and the Ford Ord Army base deal Mr. McCain helped push through for him – a deal which cost the US tax payer several million dollars.

    “my pocket book comes second to the principles of freedom, liberty, Christianity and strong self-defense.” I don’t see Mr. Obama or the Democratic Party standing for any of these principles, plain and simple. In my idealistic view, I too must ask, how could a Christian vote for the party who seems bent on the persecution of Christianity and removal of God from our culture?” – Mike Boyce

    Senator Obama has a well-documented personal faith, and (like most Democrats) he is in favour of protecting freedom of religion and the separation of church and state, both of which are inshrined in the US constitution. By default, that position means he will fight to protect the right of all Americans to believe as they wish and practice those beliefs freely, and I would suggest that to oppose that position should be considered un-American.

    On the flip-side, Many of the most vocal supporters of Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin are far-right Christian groups who would like to see the American tradition and principle of religious freedom and equality ended in favour of a theocratic system of government that would deny religious liberty to not only non-Christians but also to many Christian groups.

    Incidentally, religious liberty is listed under article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

    Regarding your concerns over America’s ability to defend itself, a McCain presidency could leave the US at greater risk of attack by Islamist terrorists by alienating key allies in the War on Terror. It would also (in my opinion) increase both the likelihood of a war with Iran and the likelihood that the US would have to fight it alone. An Obama presidency carries neither of these risks, in part due to the broad public support Mr. Obama has in the majority of foreign nations.

    “If you know of vile statements from the right, I’d like to be made aware of them.” – Seriously?

    “You’re going to be voting for a guy who voted to withhold medical care from babies born as a result of botched abortions.” – Liz

    One of Mr. McCain’s “Robocalls”:

    “I’m calling on behalf of John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama and his Democrat allies in the Illinois Senate opposed a bill requiring doctors to care for babies born alive after surviving attempted abortions — a position at odds even with John Kerry and Hillary Clinton…”

    Obama voted against the legislation because those protections already exist in Illinois state law, and because he believed that other provisions in the law were counter to his opinions on the right of women to have abortions. I cannot be sure how Clinton or Kerry would have voted, however I would not be surprised if they had voted in the same way. Incidentally, I disagree with Mr. Obama’s view on abortion, although I would prefer to see abortions reduced by avoidance than an outright ban based on religious dogma – even if I agree with that dogma.

  • http://suddenlyatheist.wordpress.com/ morsec0de

    How is accepting donations from willing donors being a hypocrite?

    You know, you may have just inspired me to donate to his campaign.

  • FreetoBe

    tavdy, I just copied your remarks. Thanks for sharing them. That was just such a compact remarkable assemblage of facts.

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    Tavdy: thanks for your kind words re: "I'm OK." I KNEW you were smart—and now, of course, I know you're exceptionall brilliant.

    Chris: good point on the donations "issue."

  • http://NorthernGleaner.blogspot.com Gene Redlin

    John,

    I looked carefully at your post.  I have considered it carefully. I read all the comments.

    I don't believe one can be a Christian and Vote for OBAMA. It will be sin. OH, God can forgive you, he forgives Adultery and Murder. If you vote OBAMA you might even be forgiven. BUT, you sin with intent.

    Kind of dicey territory.

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    I'm sorry; I must have missed that part in the Bible about how it's a sin if I don't vote for John McCain in 2008. If you'd just point out where it says that, I'll be extremely happy to change my vote.

  • http://suddenlyatheist.wordpress.com/ morsec0de

    As an atheist who is voting for Obama, my people will gladly accept any Christian who votes for Obama into the 'non-Christian' family. :)

    Is the word "Jesus-ian" taken, perhaps?

  • http://www.1truebeliever.wordpress.com wickle

    John -

    I’m sorry; I must have missed that part in the Bible about how it’s a sin if I don’t vote for John McCain in 2008. If you’d just point out where it says that, I’ll be extremely happy to change my vote.

    It's in II Extrapolations 20:08, I think.

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    Wickle: totally funny. Beautiful.

    Morse: thanks, man. see ya' in hell, fry-boy.

  • Candace

    @ Roni:

    Your Mr. Wade is not free of the lies he purports to so despise and "educate" against.

    Case in point: His referring to Keating 5 to impune McCain. McCain was exonerated of any wrongdoing.

    I take no advice from someone who presents themselves as walking the high road on the one hand, and then proceeds to engage in exactly the same tactics he rales against.

  • Roni

    I found this on the web and it echos my sentiments exactly.

    Please read, and think about what is being said.

    Why, As a born again Christian, I cannot morally vote for John McCain

    October 30, 2008 by Anthony Wade  

    As I am sure it will come as no surprise to many who know me, I will be voting for Barack Obama this year. I am doing so as a born-again Christian who believes in the bible as the inerrant word of God. I am doing so because I feel morally compelled to do so. It is my Christianity that compels me to vote for Obama. Allow me to explain.

    The organized church has long held the notion and belief that we should be voting for the candidate that most closely represents our values or beliefs. This has been a sham. You must understand that while we believe what we believe in the church, the world is entirely different. The world of politics is inherently corrupt. There is simply no escaping it. The desire for power and money take precedent over values and beliefs. It is a fairy tale to assume that we will elect a Christian who will not be inherently corrupt. In 2000 we elected someone who claimed the mantle of Christianity and eight years later we see the destruction left from the presidency of George W. Bush. If anything, we should learn that merely saying you are for Christ does not mean anything. The bible warns us:

    “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ – Matthew 7:21-23

    The bible implores us to look at the fruit, not the words. The country has been impoverished, the educational system and infrastructure are in ruins, there are over 200,000 people dead in wars that have been proven to be based upon pre-meditated lies, our civil liberties have been eroded and torture is now the official policy of this land. I have heard the cries of “it can’t all be his fault.” Yes it can and yes it is. It is time we stopped enabling and avoiding the truth.

    Thankfully, Bush cannot run again but we need to take lessons from his presidency. I have heard the cries of the pro-life and anti-gay marriage platform. It is time to be honest about them though. The GOP has no intention of ever overturning Roe versus Wade and even if they did, that would not outlaw abortion. It would only return the issue to the states. They cannot afford to overturn it because it is their greatest weapon every four years. If there was no abortion issue, the only thing they would have left to run on is endless war and tax breaks for the rich – not exactly a winning combination. So, I know it is unsettling for Christians but the reality is what it is. On gay marriage, both candidates have the same position.

    More importantly though is you have to understand that Christians are being used. Christians are being co-opted. The people that send you the pro-life emails and anti-Obama emails are the same folks. They are not Christian and do not care about the cause of Christ. They only care about you voting for their person.

    I am voting for Obama because I know when someone tries so hard to lie about someone, they must not have any substantive reason for me to vote for them. The McCain campaign and its operatives have spent 90% of their efforts trying to make me afraid of Barack Obama. The Obama lies that have been spread have been varied and insidious. The bible speaks directly against this. God hates lying lips. I know that Obama is not a secret Muslim, refuses to wear a flag pin, wont say the pledge, wants to take God off of the currency, knew someone 10 years ago who was a domestic terrorist 40 years ago, or supports infanticide and partial birth abortions. These are lies. I will not be used by people who wrap Christ around lies while they try to convince me to vote my Christian conscience.

    I do not pretend that either candidate represents true Christian values. I have heard some of the theology of Obama and it is wrong. But I also know that McCain is an admitted adulterer, liar and thief (Keating Five). The bottom line is that I have not heard John McCain tell me one good reason, Christian or otherwise, why I should vote for him. The economic policies of the last eight years have been a disaster and have seen the middle class squeezed into the working poor. McCain unashamedly admits to wanting to continue the same failed policies. The number one topic in the bible is taking care of the least in society but we have lost our way. With so many living in poverty and 50 million without healthcare, how can we say that we are a nation of Christian values? The foreign policy of arrogance and unprovoked war over the past eight years has decimated our military and damaged our credibility in the world. McCain could be even worse. He has mocked about dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran. The 200,000 people dead in the Middle East may not mean anything to some folks, but they mattered to God. I am tired of the church turning the Prince of Peace into a war monger. The truth is there is not one pro-war verse in the New Testament; not one.

    I am also voting for Obama because John McCain carelessly put political expediency first, not his country when he selected the most unqualified vice presidential candidate in the history of this country. The fact that she is a Christian is absolutely irrelevant. Once again, what is the fruit? She was on video asking a congregation to pray for the 30 billion dollar pipeline deal in Alaska, referring to it as “God’s will.” She has been exposed now as having abused her power to try and ruin the career of someone who had the temerity to divorce her sister. Her answers on everything from the simple to the difficult display her utter emptiness. I also do not need the “shucks” and winks. We have had eight years of a president who couldn’t put a coherent sentence together with two hands and a thesaurus. I do not want another. The days of wanting to have a beer with our president are graciously over. Can you honestly see Sarah Palin negotiating nuclear proliferation treaties? ‘Aww shucks Putin, I can see you from my kitchen window.” Wink wink. No thanks. And enough with the ridiculous notion that she has more experience than Obama. Barack was the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. He spent over a decade as a constitutional law professor (you remember the constitution don’t you?). He then spent over another decade as a State Senator where he represented 750,000 people, which is 100,000 more than Sarah represents as Governor. So save the canned GOP talking points please. She is horribly unqualified and dangerous to this country, period.

    So as a Christian I cannot morally vote for someone who will continue the status quo. Someone who will continue to punish the poor for the sake of the rich. My bible tells me I cannot support that. I cannot vote for someone who cares so little for life that he can casually joke and sing a song about nuking another country just because they look different than us. My bible tells me I cannot support that. I just can’t.

    I can hear the cries already from the far right. They have been sold the wedge issues for so long now that everything always comes down to abortion and gay marriage. It is as if there is nothing else going on in the world that matters to God. Genocide and famine? Nope, we got to stop abortion and gay marriage. Jesus Christ charged us with bringing the Gospel to a lost world. That was the Great Commission. That does not mean we are to bring our morality to the world but the love of Jesus Christ. Remember what we believe is at stake. We believe in heaven and hell. Eternal life with God and eternal separation from God. I ended a recent debate with a well intended Christian who felt morally compelled to vote McCain this way. Even if you were able to succeed in your plans to stop all abortions in the world and stop all gays from marrying; you have accomplished nothing. Based upon what we believe, they all would still be going to hell because of their separation from God. The Great Commission replaced by what man feels is more of a moral imperative. We need to stop trying to bring the morality of Christianity to people and get back to the red letters in the bible. Get back to bringing the world the love of Jesus Christ.

    Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to opednews.com, is dedicated to educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a 41-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess.

    Anthony Wade

  • FreetoBe

    Candace, McCain was not exonerated, the prosecutors felt there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. Different meaning altogether. Was there anything else Mr. Wade wrote that was not factual?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X