This reminds me of a line in a Justin McRoberts song called “Picking Sides” that goes:

You’re only picking sides
In a war between two fools
You should know before the fighting begins
That it’s a war you’re bound to lose

Plan A: Vote for God [if not on ballot...see plan B]

Plan B: Vote for some super sweet war hero who will keep my job in the military a viable career and will not disarm America so that Islam takes us over.

Plan C: Move to Mars, vote for Jupiter.

What….?

Politics are confusing.

Joe

–Before it was easy… who was a believer and who held my social social views… VOTE FOR THEM! People may actually need to look at some other issues this election and vote on competency and platform.–

I’m wondering when we didn’t consider competency and platform. As far as looking at other issues, well, we have always done that, too.

Sorry, but these little slams against Christian voters grow wearisome after a while. If you want a stellar example of ditching someone for his position on one issue, look at the last election and how the left treated Liebermann. He’s a dyed-in-the-wool lib, but because he disagreed with the left on Iraq, they threw him under the bus.

It used to be we knew the good guys since they were wearing the white hats … I have no idea what to do these days …

Kent,

Warren has not endorsed Obama as his preferential candidate. Allowing him to speak at an AIDS conference and saying nice things about him relative to that issue is not a carte blanche endorsement.

Quoting The KenIngrid:
When Dr. Bob Jones and Pat Robertson are both voting for provably pro-abortion, pro-gay candidates, I think the handwriting is on the wall. It’s all over folks.

As if Dr. Bob Jones Sr., Jr., the Third, etc. etc. ad nauseum and Pat Robertson are the picture of integrity.

The problem with Christians expecting any real change through the political process is that it’s trying to solve spiritual heart issues with a man-made system. It is really symptomatic of what happened when the Church was co-opted by Constantine. When Christians try to influence through exerting power over others rather than serving it will always end badly.

Even if our theology is codified in Law it still begs the question:

What are Christians going to do with 49% of our births being to unwed mothers?

How will you minister to them?

And,

NO. It’s not good enough to hammer morality from the pulpit.
There are real pastoral issues that remain regardless of laws.
You’d have to codify mandatory church attendance.
Some people would probably be ok with that…

Anyway…certain theologies made law only make a difficult pastoral situation stickier and harder…IMVHO.

I’m a died in wool anti-abortion advocate. Hate it, Hate it, Hate it. Born in 1973 (3) months to the day of Roe V. Wade.

But I firmly believe that I will enact change by ministering to those comtemplating it. Not by legislating morality.

Congress will always change. God never will. Laws don’t change hearts. God does.

So for me I won’t vote but I will pray that future mothers and fathers, homosexuals, pot-smokers, homeless, war mongers, peace nicks, vegetarians, carnivores, Islamist facists, Christian facists, Liberals, Conversatives, and Hillary Clinton come to see that Christ is true and desires that they come into abundant life with him.

“There really is no cookie-cutter republican, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, Christian candidate in this election, and it is leaving people all confused over what to do.”

Seems ignorance is the rule of the day here Nathan. There happens to be a visibly and genuinely pro-life candidate who is actively pro-traditional marriage (50 years married to his wife unlike many of the considerable candidates on the issue), and he’s a protestant by profession and in action. Plus he has the unique position that he is the only candidate who considers the Constitution before voting or proposing his solutions to what ails America, most of which is not a Federal responsibility but one to be left to the states. His name is Ron Paul and he has a long track record in Congress to prove his positions are not just a new spin to persuade the electorate but actually reflects his long held beliefs.

A few stats to consider before dismissing him as a viable candidate:
1. Won CNN.com debate poll with 59%.
2. Won an ABCNews.com debate poll with 84%.
3. Won a C-SPAN online GOP candidate poll with 69%.
4. Raised over $5 million in the last quarter and to date has over $7.5 for the current quarter including $4.2 million in 1 day, 11/05/07 with over 36,000 contributors and over 17,000 NEW contributors in a single day.

I could go on, but will simply close with this thought, if we are called to submit to the authorities and we live in a country where we have a government that is sworn to uphold the Constitution, yet fails to do so at virtually every turn of late, is it not the most obligatory thing to support the candidate who recognizes that is the sworn responsibility of those elected to positions of power, even the Presidency? Do yourselves a favor and get to know about Ron Paul and his track record and positions at http://www.ronpaul2008.com or spend an hour watching him, his supporters and the media covereage of him and his positions at http://ronpauldvdproject.com/

I wouldn’t say that the Constitution is a means to a Christian society, but rather it is what is to guide the governance of the US, therefore our responsibility is to promote the upholding of it. Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world and in 1 Peter 1:1,2a, Peter addresses his letter with this “To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,”

But I would say you are right that Ron Paul thinks that way, but in its undiluted and unadulterated original form the Constitution is an ingenious and very peaceable guide under which to live. Too bad it has been ignored for so long.

I’m in australia but follow Ron Paul’s stuff (wishing we had someone like him here) and I’ve never seen anything of his that is has “libertarian leanings” that is worrying.

–jazzact113,

did you read the small print?–

Yes, I did. You said that you know that not everyone votes like you that. The implication seems to be that you think a majority do vote like that.

I just thought that the use of “kingpin” was rather strange and disrespectful for a person that would be on her side.

Also, I never really thought of BJ III (not to be confused with the false KC prophet one LOL!) as the most important person in the fundamentalist quarters!

So maybe it is a “cultural” term of endearment? It seemed she was not too pleased by it… yet held back on her rant against him. I guess he was not “emergent” enough to rant against. LOL!

Be blessed,
iggy