Cutting to the chase, I was born and raised Southern Baptist. For non-Christians, I'll summarize what this means. We have services Sunday morning and evening, as well as Wednesday evening. We eat fried chicken every Wednesday in the fellowship hall, We believe that God is the triumvirate God (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and that there are no other Gods. We believe in a literal heaven and hell, and that salvation is through Jesus' death on the cross alone. on social topics, we we view drinking alcohol is a sin (even though the Bible doesn't say so), premarital sex is a sin, homosexuality is a sin, dancing...while not a sin probably isn't a good idea and pornography is a sin. We do believe that once you're saved, you can't lose salvation. We hold to priesthood of the believer which means that God talks directly to you, and you don't have to go through a priest or other medium to be able to communicate with God. Generally, we believe that men and women have separate rolls, and women are not allowed to preach...but they can teach and lead music. While there is much more to it than that, I'm trying to make this as relevant and understandable as possible.
So now we come to this election for President. Southern Baptists are statistically right leaning, and so Romney seems to be lining up to be the Presidential candidate that people like me are going to be voting for. (fun fact- Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore all professed to be Southern Baptist but severed ties at some point during their political career.)
And now to the elephant in the room: Mormonism. While those on the outside of Christianity may view Mormonism as a denomination (different branch of the same thing) of Christianity, but it is not. Mormonism holds very different theological beliefs, especially in regard to who Jesus is, salvation, and the roll of the Church. They are not mutually compatible religions.
Barrack Obama maintains that he is a member of a Church of Christ church. While there are some theological disagreements I have with them, I would consider them a denomination of Christianity, and despite some people I know, I won't doubt his statement that he is a Christian.
Ok, now we get to my point- When voting for a President, do you vote for the person who aligns with you ideologically, or the person who shares a theological background with you? If you are a 'Bible-believing" Christian, what is the the most important aspect of a person's character?
TL:DR
Mitt Romney- Right-Wing Big Business Idolater Barrack Obama- Left-Wing Socialist Believer in Jesus
As an atheist, I prefer to look at their policy regarding upholding the United States Constitution, the only document through which laws should be based, not theological preference. I'd vote for a Muslim candidate if s/he wanted to uphold the Constitution, and would vote against an atheist if s/he wanted to violate it.
I'm not sure where you fall into the spectrum of politics, but I identify with neither Reps or Dems (Libertarian is closest, but still not 100%).
I'm solidly conservative. I believe in smaller Federal Government, and stronger state/local governments. My question is mostly to check and see the pulse of those like me who call ourselves Christian. Is it ok for a Christian to vote for a non-Christian if their politics line up? Even if that means voting against and admitted Christian who seems to be a good father and husband and someone who seems to live like a 'good Christian.' It's a weird question, admittedly, but what is the most important factor in a Christian's life, and do we let that slide so that we can advance our own political leaning?"
BTW, I don't like Romney...but I like him better than Obama in regard to politics; but I'd rather write in Ronald Reagan's Corpse.
Just remember, you're not voting for the man, you're voting for the President. I'd drink beer and have a barbecue with GW, and probably have a great time, but as far as Presidents go, he was pretty awful. I want a smaller Fed, but stricter enforcement of Constitutional rights. It seems like lately the Fed has been willfully ignoring or even condoning restrictions of freedom. Other thing -- states rights should never trump the Constitution. North Carolina just did that, and it's a dangerous precedent, as was Prop 8.
I don't like Obama, because he had so much potential, and wasted all the enthusiasm and support. I dislike Romney more. I can't say I don't like his platform, because I don't know what his platform is. He changes it nigh daily at this point.
I don't think it *should* conflict with your ethics to vote for a person not of your faith. You're not voting on religious policy, but rather, public service. A President should never show preference to a particular religion in legislation or policy -- that violates the First Amendment. The office should be secular, in the sense that upholding the Constitution is right. Whether a person has moral convictions via your religion, another, or their own personal code should be sufficient, so long as they make the right decisions for the country.
On paper, I agree with you. BTW, I agree, state laws should not trump the Constitution, but by the same token, misreadings of the necessary and proper clause or the Commerce clause should not give Congress absolute authority to pass whatever they think is 'beneficial' to the Union. People should read more Madison..and leave Hamilton to his opinions, and remember that the powers of Congress are dictated in the constitution, and shouldn't be so overarching. Legal opinions should be based off of what Madison implied AT HIS TIME with the language he used...not by what the language might mean today. It is for these reasons that I reiterate the need for a small Federal Government.
I would be remiss if I didn't say that some of the reason I like Romney more than Obama, is because I really dislike Obama's platforms. I would be one of THOSE guys not voting for a candidate, but voting against one. I don't believe in the expansion of Federal programs, I don't like this left-shift in Federal politics, and I really dislike the idea of the Government making my decisions for me. I've not liked Romney, and would prefer a Chris Christie or a Bobby Jindal to vote for.
But the conflict I'm talking about is whether or not, as a Christian and looking at it from a Christian perspective, ok to vote for someone who is not a Christian. I know, as an Atheist, this seems to be a silly question; but the conflict comes down to what is a person's prime value. If a Christian states that God inhabits the number one place in our life, is it conflicting to then vote someone who doesn't hold that value as 'leader' of the nation we live in?
I wan't Christians to really think about this, because we talk out of both sides of our mouths on this topic. We're willing to let 'the God thing' slide, so long as the politics line up. So...is it hypocrisy?In reply to ChaosAD, #4:
Did I read that Obama was a socialist? Yeah, and I'm a flying pimp. As a person from a socialist country, I can sure as hell tell you his policies are not really close to socialism.
Anyways, from what I've read online Obama would be my choice. He's not perfect at all, not even close. But he is more open-mindend and closer to the center than Romney. You guys can choose right or extreme right it seems like. As long as it doesn't affect their politics they can be of whatever faith they choose. Choosing your vote based on the candidate's religion doesn't really make sense.
But what do I know? I'm just a stupid socialist European right? I don't even speak 'murican. (Just for a refference I'm not really a socialist, I'm a Liberal, and not the "American Liberal".)
In reply to DangerShroom, #7: In reply to KWierso, #5:
Guess I'm going to have to say this- I was using that satirically to create a chi-ism between Romney and Obama. Obama is far to the left of what I agree with, and some of the people who have influenced him are definitely in the Marx camp...but I don't go so far as to actually call him a 'socialist.'
My point was to explore if Faith was a determining factor in who people will vote for. This isn't entirely without precedence- there was a big hullabaloo about Kennedy being Catholic.
In reply to priest81, #8: Obama isn't on the left side at all by the way. But he might be more left than you are though. And Marx camp would be communist camp. Which a brand of socialism called "Marx Socialism" just the same as Hitler camp would be "National Socialist camp". My point is, socialism isn't the same as communism.
Anyways, from what I've read(again) a lot of Americans base their vote on what religion the candidate is. And how religious he is, the more the better. But Obama vs. Romney doesn't seem like it's split by religion.
Ok, Let's just lay it all out- Marx taught that Capitalism would fail and lead to Socialism, which would then lead to Communism. The difference is that Socialism is the working class rules all, and communism is the idea of a classless society. He preferred the implementation of Socialism. When I said that people who have influenced Obama, this is what I mean: that people who have helped shape him to what he is today believe in this left-shift. I'll use Bill Ayers as an example.
Obama is very much on the left side of American politics. He was a labor union lawyer, he was a community organizer working to organize the labor class for whatever purpose, and he has actively pushed for the Nationalization of Health insurance, which by design filters things from the top down. While I'm not saying he's Socialist, his policies are very Left of Center. He's not a socialist because he is not taking down capitalism, but he is influenced by people who would like to see that change.
Left of America's center is not the same as left of the world's center then.
I'm a center oriented liberal, whatever that is, and Obama is in no way possible too "left" for me, but way to right. He is more left than Romney yes, but that just makes him as you said, on the left side of American politics. As you have two parties to choose from, one extreme right, and one center to right. It's really not that hard of a thing too see.
I keep myself in the center, extremism is bad in every part of politics, be it right, left up or down.
So this is totally off my topic, but you've piqued my curiosity. You say that Obama is too right for you. What do you mean by that, and what are your political stances?
I would not vote for any president based on their religious views.
As for right vs. left, well, through most of the US's history, especially in the last few decades, there have been mostly right-wing governments in power, and their policies have only made a very small percent of the population richer, while the rest don't seem to be better off. Not to mention the financial crisis of '08. I think that means its time for a government with more leftist leanings and less conservativism in their policies to be allowed to have a try at it, since nowadays, right-wing politicians are pretty much the ones who are fostering inequality.
You shouldn't vote based on there Religion, you should vote based on what they plan to do with the country. There Religions are irrelevant. (besides either way the country's fucked)
I'm not asking if you should or should not; what I am asking is if Christians find it a conflict of faith to vote for someone who doesn't share belief. I guess I could ask it this way as well: If you're an Atheist does a belief in a deity diminute your trust in their ability to run a country?
I'm not even sure anymore how to describe my religious views, simply because any description I may have used in the past has been smeared by losers who use the same terms. I love Jesus, the Son of God, and I grew up as a Baptist. I now consider myself non-denominational, as most denominations just seem to have little quirks here and there to try and differentiate themselves from others. Whatever. The core beliefs of Christianity are what matters, and those all involve Jesus and having a relationship with him, not with keeping religious sanctums and blah blah. For the most part, priest81, you and I are the same page, with some minor differences. I'm cool with that.
That being said, I think too many people get too caught up in whether or not a candidate has this belief or that belief, these morals or those morals. In reality, just look at the voting record, and past politics. In truth, Obama is one of the least qualified people who have ever been elected as President, and never really even had a "job" per say. That shows in his lack of accomplishing anything except trying to clean up the economic mess by crapping on it and covering it up with too much toilet paper. His campaign was brilliant; he got elected. But I just can't help but liken him to a spoiled teenager who pushes and pushes until he gets his way, even if it means circumventing all established routes to get something done. And he's not even afraid to admit he does this.
I didn't vote not-vote-for Obama because of his religious views or morals. I didn't vote for him because he had no experience, let alone the ability to run a country. You should vote for someone you believe can affect change/stability in a country, not because he says Hope and Change, but because he presents a plan, and his voting record supports this.
You are not wrong for wanting a "Godly" man in office, but perhaps you are mistaken in voting for someone because he is or you perceive him to be "Godly". Being Godly is not a qualifier to run for office.
I'm not posting here to engage in a political debate, though I'm sure there are many Obama supporters here who will gladly dispute my claims and present all the faults of Oil Tycoon GW and the glory days of Do Nothing Clinton. I don't care. Vote for who you want to vote for; I'm not holding anyone's hand. Just make sure you know why you're voting for them. =)
Why would it be a conflict of faith? Is there something in the Bible that I"m not aware of that states you must vote for Christian Presidents? I'm pretty sure Jesus never said anything about this.
The idea to support someone that does not hold to Christian ideals clearly is though. I can believe you even think your statement is legitimate...in fact...
So I suppose a good question is, do you support one whom might share your Christian ideals, despite the flagrant disregard for the foundation of American society, that is, secularism at its roots? (For example, Rick Santorum.)
Would you feel no moral conflict voting for someone that shares your religion, but seeks to destroy the societal fabric in quest for a theocratic America?
I'm exploring the level of value that a person puts on their faith. For example, would you vote for a candidate that was for National Healthcare, but pro-life. Where on your array of values is your stance on being pro-choice? What level of importance?
As a Christian, we often say that God is the ultimate thing in our lives. So, when we go to the polls, where on the array of values is adherence to God for Christians voting? At what point is it ok to say...well, he lines up with x principles...so that's ok.
Again, I'm not making a for or against post on this, I'm just curious to see what others think.
Oh come on, anyone who can come to the conclusion, "I'm pretty sure Jesus never said anything about this." should be able to come to the same conclusion I made. Anyone who's read the Bible should be able to figure that out. So he either never read the Bible, truly has come to a dumb conclusion, or is trolling. This is exactly why I never venture into the PC forum.
Izzi's a "she", is a regular, and is making a commentary on the injection of religious arguments into policy matters. Jesus didn't say anything about following a political leader because of their religious beliefs. He did, however, say something about rendering something onto something and rendering something else to some guy.
By the by, PCE really isn't terribly different from, say, CBM, just a different group of people--for the most part.
While you could proof-text like that, not quite what was happening then. The issue there was an oppressive government (Rome) had subjugated the world. The puppet monarchy (Herod) and the political/religious leaders (the Sanhedrin) were playing Caesars game to keep the peace. Who wouldn't, though? So long as they played nice and paid their tributes, they had a sympathetic ear with Rome. Heck, Caesar was fond of Herod, and for the most part, let Israel do what she wished. These people did't like Jesus very much. So they asked him if they should continue to pay taxes to Rome.
This is a trick question. If he answered 'yes' he would go against the public opinion that was held behind closed doors, effectively undercutting his support base. If he answered 'no' that was an offense against Rome, and Rome would view Jesus much how they viewed the other zealots running around, and would punish him...ending his attack on the Sanhedrin.
He didn't answer Yes, or No...He answered appropriately to both parties. Jesus was not making a critique on the separation between Church and State- he was evading a non-winnable trap. He took the Kobayashi Maru test.
TL;DR- Rendering to Caesar what is Caesars does not mean that your political, moral, and spiritual beliefs or responsibilities are separate.
The issue though is just because Jesus didn't say something doesn't mean God didn't reveal it elsewhere through Biblical teaching.
People often want to take bits and pieces or take things out of context to make a point and that often makes a point invalid.
My point is that through study of the Bible, it is obvious that Christians should vote for individuals that hold to Biblical ideals. A Christian's worldview should come through the Bible first and foremost. So just because others that don't hold to a Christian faith don't see the need to apply religion to politics does not mean it is not important or even mandated for Christians.
The issue though is just because Jesus didn't say something doesn't mean God didn't reveal it elsewhere through Biblical teaching.
People often want to take bits and pieces or take things out of context to make a point and that often makes a point invalid.
My point is that through study of the Bible, it is obvious that Christians should vote for individuals that hold to Biblical ideals. A Christian's worldview should come through the Bible first and foremost. So just because others that don't hold to a Christian faith don't see the need to apply religion to politics does not mean it is not important or even mandated for Christians.
So, with that being said, are you comfortable voting for a person who, while may support many of your views and morals, Adheres to a religion that holds tenants that are incompatible with Christian beliefs. Lets even take the Mormonism off the table...How important is it to you, a Christian, that your President also be a Christian? Would you vote for a non-Christian, and if so, can you reconcile this with your faith?
My point is that through study of the Bible, it is obvious that Christians should vote for individuals that hold to Biblical ideals.
I'm going to assume that your view of Biblical ideals doesn't line up with, say, a progressive baptist like Fred Clark. In this sense I don't think it's realistic, from the outside, to draw a line between the 'biblical adherence' of a candidate and their lining up with the favoured policies of, for example, an environmentalist who votes entirely on such issues. It's not a universal objective standard any more than any other set of principles.
But I've got two main points I'd like to insert beyond that.
The first is how important declarations of belief are compared to actions. A great deal of American Christianity is based on the concept of faith over works to the extent that there is an apparent aversion to using works to judge a person's character. Their claims to faith and their declarations of beliefs gain more significance in certain circles than their actions and positions on what I would have thought as significantly spiritual subjects.
This is the main thing that does affect that point I made above. While the environmentalist may demand certain policy positions or a history of action, all too often the religious credentials of candidates are based on entirely intangible factors or proclamations of faith from politically motivated actors. Too much reliance on such matters simply begging to be lied to and tricked. Not that politicians don't lie in other areas, but at least there the demands of such lies are (usually) higher than a few dogwhistles or attendance of the right church.
The second is more about Romney. Back in 2007 he gave a speech that attempted to associate himself with evangelical/conservative Christians, primarily by drawing the line between the religious and non-religious (or rather between Christians+Mormons and non-Christians) thicker than the line between Christians and Mormons.
This was not well accepted in any quarters. He was trying to appeal to people who demanded adherence to a particular religion for their votes while not actually adhering to that religion in their eyes. At the same time he was attacking people who called for the very principles of religious acceptance that he was relying on to get the Christian vote.
This was in direct contrast to the methods used by JFK in his own bid for the presidency. He flat rejected the idea of voting based on religion, calling for people to judge him by his actions and policies. He effectively won despite his religion, but understood that he had to run towards acceptance and not discrimination. Romney seems to have gotten this backwards. At the time (in a post I can't find anywhere anymore) Fred Clark compared this to a kid sucking up to a bigger bully, trying to mock others and make them targets so the bully didn't turn their attention onto him. The point he made was that the toady rarely gets the bully's respect.
Essentially Romney is running against himself on this issue. If people can't accept his religious views it won't be out of line of his own positions on the topic.
