Saturday, October 27, 2012

Could a Christian Vote for Romney?


I from time to time am hearing--always second hand--from people who say that someone they know is a Christian but just can't vote for Romney.  I would like such a someone to explain to me how that is possible.  Seriously, how can anyone call them self a follower of Christ, living in today's America, and say such a thing?

These candidates have articulated their positions on a wide range of issues on which Christians should have opinions.  We are not talking about style or likeability or whether they are a good leader or have a nice personality or speak well with or without a teleprompter.  This is about specific laws that they would use their power to enforce on all Americans.  For instance:
  1. We have a federal law that says marriage is the union of one man and one woman, called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Clinton. Obama supports the repeal of that law, Romney opposes repeal.
  2. How about strengthening DOMA, by amending the U.S. Constitution to specifically define marriage as "only" the union of one man and one woman, so activist judges can no longer overturn democratically enacted laws and ordinances that say marriage is just that?  Romney supports such a Constitutional amendment, Obama opposes it.
  3. Should "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" be considered a protected classification under law, something that everyone has to treat as a neutral, unobjectionable, perfectly normal-and-beyond-your-control trait, like your race, sex, religion and ancestry? Romney says these should not be treated the same, while Obama says they should not only be treated equally with race, religion, etc., but that sexual activities and debaucheries should be given preference over matters of religion when the two come into conflict!
  4. Should the federal government (using tax dollars collected by force from everyone who works...that's where the government gets money) give money to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers? Obama says yes, Romney says no.
  5. Prohibit abortion except where it is necessary to save the life of the mother? Romney says yes, Obama says (vigorously, repeatedly, loudly and in every way within his power, and uses this power to make abortion more frequent) no!
  6. What if a doctor or nurse or pharmacist chooses to decline to provide a service that is available elsewhere because it violates his or her conscience? Romney says honoring their conscience should be their right, Obama says they should have no such right. If you choose to work in health care, he says check your religion at the door!
  7. Repeal ObamaCare:  We could discuss and explain for days the pros and cons of the law, but there is no disagreement on two things: (a) It allows government appointees to make rules like "everyone must share the costs of your abortion" and "everyone must contribute to your birth control expenses even if you are unmarried."  (b) It is perhaps the largest ever example of the federal government "legislating morality" (which is wholly contrary to our Founders' beliefs about the role of the federal government, something I blogged about for months!) Romney says repeal it, Obama, obviously, says don't. 
  8. Who should have the say-so about the sort of education children receive: the government or their parents? Romney supports letting parents select where at lest some of the money allocated to educate their children will be spent, aka "vouchers" while Obama says no, government trumps parental control; "we want to spend more and more money on public education, but the only way you get any is to turn your kids over to us!"
  9. On the budgetary process in Washington D.C., Romney supports a Constitutional amendment that would require Congress to balance its budget every year: no more deficit spending by either party!  Obama opposes it.
  10. Should state and local law enforcement officials be allowed to enforce immigration laws?  Obama says no, Romney says yes.
Beyond these "obvious" moral issues there is the whole realm of economics.  Obama is clearly a central-control liberal, Romney much more of a free-market capitalist.  Economic policy is also a moral issue: liberals use government immorally! For example:
  1. If your child is dabbling in drugs and drink, and as a result is not able to "get by on" his allowance, would it be moral to increases his allowance? Of course not. It is immoral to give money to people making harmful life choices, since it has the effect of enabling and solidifying those bad choices.  You would make them more firmly entrenched in the harmful behavior.  That is immoral, and liberal government policy does it all the time.
  2. Your eldest, unmarried daughter is sexually active, and gets pregnant (duh!). Would you give her money to move out on her own and announce: "if any of my other children get pregnant before marriage, I will give you a food and housing allowance, too"?  No matter what your good intentions might be, this would increase temptation to such inappropriate activities in your other children.  Government does this sort of thing all the time. Anything you subsidize, you get more of.  It is an irrefutable law of economic and human behavior.
  3. If you have one child who is diligent and hardworking, saving his allowance and the extra money he makes shoveling sidewalks and mowing yards for purchase of his first car, while his twin brother is spending all of his allowance on candy and disposable junk, would you confiscate part of the diligent one's savings to make things fair when it comes time for them to buy their first cars? This is the Obama-Biden definition of "fairness" in action at a level where everyone can see it.
When people have freedom to decide what they want to do with their time and money, that freedom must include reaping the good or bad consequences.  Whether it is your lazy son, the unwed mother, the guy on welfare, or GM, or AIG.  "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools." (Herbert Spencer)  I believe it is immoral to use government power to fill the world with fools.  Don't you? (For more on how anti-Christian it is for government to reward evil and punish righteousness, see this blog post.)

I would like to hear a rational, Christian defense of any of the positions Obama holds compared to that of Romney.  If these issues are not important to you as a Christian, then could you tell me what Obama policies you consider to be both

  • more important than the these, and 
  • preferable to Romney's position on the same issue?
Just one more point and I am done for today.  To anyone who has decided not to vote for either one because "I just can't vote for a Mormon" or "there isn't that much difference between them"...that is one of the most moronic decisions imaginable.  Neither candidate is perfect (obviously...since you are not the one running) but they are very different from each other and propose very different paths and will (Obama has proven it already) do what they can to force upon us what they believe in!  One of these two men is going to be the next President of the United States. That is simply a fact, so get over it. Your voting decision will help decide which one it will be. 

If you don't vote, or if you waste your vote on a third candidate, you are not being salt and light, you are not rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and you are not doing what is within your power to leave the world a safer place for the Gospel...and God save you from such blind foolishness.

On the other hand, if you believe that government persecution is the best way to help more people to make it to heaven, vote for a third party, stay home on election day, or go all out and vote for Obama. Otherwise, you have no rational choice left.

How can any Christian not vote for Romney?

6 comments:

  1. I would question what rendering unto Caesar has to do in the context of voting?


    Also, I completely disagree with the concept of a "wasted vote." I will vote according to my principles, and my conscience will not let me support either major candidate. As such, if I was to cast a vote, I would refuse to violate my conscience, and my vote would be cast for a third party candidate, and I would be perfectly within my rights as a Christian and a US citizen to do so. My vote is representative of MY opinion. I will not conform to a two-party voting system simply because one of those two men will be elected. I will continue to support those my conscience allows me to support. I can find nothing in the Bible that tells me I must vote Republican. I don't want a perfect candidate. I want a candidate who is truly pro-life, and one who respects the constitution in all areas. Romney fits neither of those. He is pro-life "except for rape, incest, and health of the mother." Those exceptions are inconsistent, illogical, and you will never succeed in regulating abortions with an exception policy. Even if such a ridiculous "pro-life" position was regulated by law, all women would have to do is say "I was raped" or, "it was an incestuous relationship" or, "I don't think my body can handle it" to get an abortion. I will not cast a vote in favor of the murder of the unborn in any volume. Ever.

    R.C. Sproul Jr. said it best when he stated (paraphrased) that God has already decided the outcome of the election. The ballot box is just a polling booth to see who will stay true to the values and beliefs they claim to hold.

    I am not hostile to Christians supporting Romney as a matter of conscience, but I would appreciate the same respect being shown both ways, as being called a blind, foolish, irrational moron who should simply get over his personal convictions in order to cast a vote that is statistically inconsequential is slightly offensive. Such a tone does not strike me as particularly Christ-like. I sympathize with your strong opinions, but there are great men of faith who hold very different views on the Christian responsibility to vote. Your argumentation would be far more persuasive without the ad hominem attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Phil, thanks for stopping by and commenting. The thrust of my post was, of course, toward those who might think of voting for Obama over Romney.

    Moronic as I used it is "notably lacking in judgment" which is my conclusion given the factual information stated, and particularly directed toward those who use the reasons of "I just can't vote for a Mormon" or "there isn't that much difference between them.” Still, I accept your admonition, I should have done without that pejorative term.

    Sproul really says that about the election? It amazes me how a person's theology can
    1. De-motivate one from taking action where it certainly appears that God has given us opportunity to act,
    2. Absolve one in his own mind from personal accountability for choosing in an arena in which, from all appearances, God has given us opportunity to choose, and
    3. allow one to bootstrap one's self by one's own actions into an uncertain sense of security before God, even while simultaneously claiming to give God credit for everything.

    Foolish and blind? If Sproul is correct in his theology, then there is no reason for him or you to be offended by or defensive about my comments…I simply don’t matter. On the other hand, if he would just so happen to be mistaken in his beliefs, perhaps blind to the truth, then he and his followers may be leaving un-done a great deal of what God expects of them. This would be tragic not only for them, but for the world in which they could have made a difference. The idea that the “ballot box is just a polling booth to see who will stay true to the values and beliefs they claim to hold” is a very coercive argument to vote as he directs. But if he is mistaken, the only point of your vote is to prove to yourself by your own works your standing before God…truly foolishness.

    I might be wrong. At this point, I am assuming God expects me to be a faithful steward of everything that has been entrusted to me that might make a positive difference—including my vote. If you and Sproul are right, I assume I am safe in my sincere efforts to make a difference even if I was deluded in thinking I could.

    As for voting your conscience—I appeal to the fact that one or the other of these men will be president, and if one is the better choice (let’s just say that “fewer babies will be aborted” for instance, since that is your issue), I contend that every Christian has a conscientious duty to do what they can to contribute to bringing about the better option. And if you waste the vote elsewhere—and of course that is your right—so doing makes it more likely that Obama will be elected, and more babies will be aborted than would have been. Perhaps you would permit me to consider this irrational? In any event, I could not bear it on my conscience.

    No statistical difference made? If you, and those who share your views (perhaps under the influence of good—but possibly mistaken—men like Sproul) all act as you suggest, it starts making a difference. I urge you to reconsider. But you have the right to disagree, and you have expressed it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. He posted it as a passing comment on his twitter/facebook thread, yes. If you want to look it up, it's public. And I agree with the statement entirely.

    I would say that his particular school of theology lends itself well to the concept of stewardship and good conduct in public policy, especially in light of his eschatological optimism in the area of eventual social reform. It is my view that casting a vote for a candidate is supporting the policies that candidate touts. I cannot support a "pro-life with exceptions" policy. My conscience will not let me cast a vote in favor of the murder of the unborn, in any amount. And as I said, I do not believe Romney will make any difference in the number of abortions. His exceptions policy is too vague and too inconsistent for our governing bodies to accept legislation that would make any real difference. Abortion is my single issue, yes, but I also cannot support Romney or Obama's socialistic views on government regulation, social programs, drug wars, etc. Modern conservatism is simply a shadow of recently passed liberalism. I give the Republican party another two election cycles before a candidate runs on outspoken wealth redistribution like Obama has.

    The "point" of my vote is to show my personal opinion. As such, it will reflect my own opinion in every area. If more people, especially Christians, voted according to policy and character and ignored parties, we would not be faced with the two choices that we have before us.

    If such strong "Christians have the responsibility to vote" rhetoric had been applied to the primaries as much as has been in the presidential election, I suspect we would have a very different choice in the Republican party. As it stands, our choices are terrible, and I cannot support either one. God has ordained His choice of our next leader and will move those who vote to vote as He sees fit. But I cannot rationalize a vote for a lesser evil, no matter how lesser it may be. I would personally consider it poor stewardship of my vote to waste it on a candidate who will move us further away from Biblical truth.

    Mitt Romney will receive every electoral vote in my state. My vote is inconsequential. My opinions on his policies are inconsequential, because we who are "conservative" have foolishly placed a poor candidate in front of the people and said "yes, this is our nominee, he deserves our support."

    I believe God has given us plenty of options here. We can exercise our right to vote however we feel led, whether it be a vote for Romney, a vote for a third party, or choosing to exercise our right to vote by abstaining. That is my choice as I feel God has led me. I appreciate the dialogue :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. A note or two about each of your paragraphs.

    I didn’t doubt that Sproul said that; still, it shocks me a little to see it in print.

    You say your theology “lends itself well to the concept of stewardship and good conduct in public policy…” but that is certainly not evident on its face. If the outcome is all pre-ordained, voting is an exercise in futility, merely telling God in a secret voting booth what you stand for. I don’t see it.
    Your view on abortion ignores a lot of relevant issues. Romney cannot pass a law as you describe, even if he wants to. But that is not the only battleground. Any real reductions in abortion will be the result of Supreme Court appointments (you really see no difference between Obama and Romney?) on one side, and lessened government subsidies on the other (ObamaCare, executive orders and Secretary of Human Services regulations…no difference between Obama and Romney?). You are being naïve or misled. There will be more abortions under Obama than under Romney, and every one in that “more” is one murder of the unborn that you voted for if your vote might have helped elect Romney.
    I have been saying for decades that it seems the two major parties are no longer arguing about direction, only speed. But on occasion, there is at least a brief reversal of direction, a re-set. Now is a great opportunity for such a reversal.

    Your vote is merely an expression of your personal opinion? Here you buy into liberal thinking, where everything is about “me” and “my feelings” and there is no objective right or wrong. I believe you will be accountable to God in the judgment for your vote; did you use it to hurt or help other people? Otherwise, I say “Amen” to your sentiments…just remember, you have to analyze each opportunity as it comes to you. Now, anything less than a vote for Romney is a “half vote” for Obama.

    Yes, my vote was not for Romney in the primary, but I am curious about your view here: does God not handle Primaries? Only the general election?
    And you think Romney will take us further away from Biblical truth than will Obama? Any vote other than Romney is a half vote for Obama.

    You personally may take special liberties if you are in an overwhelmingly Republican state…but your views for anyone in a swing state is dangerous and irresponsible.
    Oh, again, query: conservatives took the primary out of God’s hands?

    One final thought. In December of 2011 you blogged that one should “jump in and try to DO something to make a difference” and “someone needs to do SOMETHING and I'm not going to put my faith in someone else to come and save the day when I have two legs and two arms that I can make a difference with. Why on earth would anyone stand back and let someone be raped and not do anything?” You also wrote that “we should not shy away at the thought or opportunity to help someone else however we can. If that means remembering that first aid class and stopping someone's bleeding, do it. If it means not knowing what to do but running to find someone who does, do it. But my goodness, do NOT stand by and be complacent about someone else's pain.” (http://ohreallywhatflavor.blogspot.com/)
    What makes it appropriate to intervene in a fire, rape, or accident, but allows you to stand on the sidelines and watch the country being burned, raped and pillaged? Does God handle elections but not fires or bleeding? Has your outlook on life changed?
    Wasting your vote on a third party is like watching the fire while writing “fires are bad” with your finger in the sandbox.

    It’s time to jump in, Phil. You and every Christian voter should do everything within your power to make a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  5. God works through means. God leads people to accomplish His purposes. I don't know why He has chosen to present us with these two candidates, but He has. I don't know why He has convicted me that I cannot support either of them, but He has. I have my reasoning. God certainly had His hand on the primaries, but I can certainly also critique the actions of fallen humans. I believe the Bible clearly shows both the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men, and the clear reality of choice and consequence.

    "There will be more abortions under Obama than under Romney, and every one in that “more” is one murder of the unborn that you voted for if your vote might have helped elect Romney."

    I view it from a different perspective. If I vote for Mitt Romney, even if his ideal system of abortion regulations were established as stated, every abortion that happens under his exceptions policy will be on my conscience, because I voted in support of the woman's right to kill that infant. You see, I also believe I will be personally accountable to God for my vote. I firmly believe in an objective right and wrong. I suppose you're telling me that objective "right" is casting a vote for the lesser evil, and the objective "wrong" is my stance. Here I stand and disagree with you. I will use my vote to aid the unborn and support only those who refuse to advocate ANY murder in the womb.


    As I said, God works through means as He chooses to lead people. I am obviously not opposed to action in favor of improving our society. I AM jumping in and doing things. But I am of the strong conviction that a vote for Mitt Romney is NOT a vote to make a difference. It is a vote in favor of things I cannot support. That is where we fundamentally differ.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good morning, Phil. There was a longer line than I have ever encountered at the polling place today.

    I deleted your 7:08PM message simply because I don't youtube and don't promote youtube on my blog. For any interested readers, Phil recommended what he called "a very thorough video put out by a group called Abolish Human Abortion that I [Phil] agree with on the issue of abortion and why we would not vote for Romney." Perhaps Phil will post the link on his blog.

    A wonderful thing about Christianity is that we aren't saved by knowing everything or getting every action right (whether that be casting your vote or youtube-ing!) but by completely trusting Jesus. This means we can be saved and still not always come to identical conclusions on issues. We each make our case and present what we believe to be true, but in the end, each of us has to decide what action to take. I hope and pray that your conclusion does not prevail among conservatives in swing states today, because just a few hundred people embracing your view could result in four more years of an accelerated nose-dive toward degradation.

    ReplyDelete