Christians and Voting

[CSloan]

I like this explanation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4L7k6g0HQ



Might vote for him also!

That was great, God bless him and his courage. If I voted, he would have my vote!

[zoonance]

See, I could also run for president!

[zoonance]

See, I could also run for president!

But I can't be a christian?

[CSloan]

See, I could also run for president!

But I can't be a christian?

What are you talking about?

[Sequea]

I like this explanation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4L7k6g0HQ



Might vote for him also!

That was great, God bless him and his courage. If I voted, he would have my vote!

If he doesn't become president then he would be a GREAT pastor. If I vote and if he has good debates I might just vote for him!

Sequea

[Jaime]

I like this explanation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4L7k6g0HQ



Might vote for him also!

That was great, God bless him and his courage. If I voted, he would have my vote!

If he doesn't become president then he would be a GREAT pastor. If I vote and if he has good debates I might just vote for him!

Sequea

What do you and others mean by "If I vote?" There should be no doubt. Our non-vote matters greatly to the other side. If ya know what I mean. There is no such thing as an inconsequential non-vote. There are major consequences of a non-vote.

If you are a liberal and don't vote, you are voting for a conservative. If you are a conservative and don't vote, you are voting for a liberal.

You might as well make your political statment with your vote as opposed to your statement being made for the other guy with a non-vote.

[CSloan]

I like this explanation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na4L7k6g0HQ



Might vote for him also!

That was great, God bless him and his courage. If I voted, he would have my vote!

If he doesn't become president then he would be a GREAT pastor. If I vote and if he has good debates I might just vote for him!

Sequea

What do you and others mean by "If I vote?" There should be no doubt. Our non-vote matters greatly to the other side. If ya know what I mean. There is no such thing as an inconsequential non-vote. There are major consequences of a non-vote.

If you are a liberal and don't vote, you are voting for a conservative. If you are a conservative and don't vote, you are voting for a liberal.

You might as well make your political statment with your vote as opposed to your statement being made for the other guy with a non-vote.

I am neither a non-voting liberal or conservative. I'm simply a Christian who doesn't vote.

I have no other political statment.

[Jaime]

I don't understand how anyone could choose to not vote after all the blood sweat and tears shed in our history to ensure that freedom.

[CSloan]

I don't understand how anyone could choose to not vote after all the blood sweat and tears shed in our history to ensure that freedom.

The only blood shed I believe we should be concerned with was that upon the cross.

[Jaime]

I don't understand how anyone could choose to not vote after all the blood sweat and tears shed in our history to ensure that freedom.

The only blood shed I believe we should be concerned with was that upon the cross.

A valid point. However, freedom isn' t cheap. The freedom to believe like we do for instance and worship how we see fit.  I don't think we ought to cheapen these freedoms by trivializing them.

If you don't mind sharing, why would voting be such a negative thing for you?

-----------------------
PS. The Moderators may want to split this off into the political forums under WJV - Would Jesus Vote?

[CSloan]

I don't understand how anyone could choose to not vote after all the blood sweat and tears shed in our history to ensure that freedom.

The only blood shed I believe we should be concerned with was that upon the cross.

A valid point. However, freedom isn' t cheap. The freedom to believe like we do for instance and worship how we see fit.  I don't think we ought to cheapen these freedoms by trivializing them.

If you don't mind sharing, why would voting be such a negative thing for you?

-----------------------
PS. The Moderators may want to split this off into the political forums under WJV - Would Jesus Vote?

2Ti 2:4
No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of [this] life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

[DCR]

All the above posts were split from the "God Created the Earth in Six 24 Hour Days" thread in the Apologetics section.

[navyvet]

I don't understand how anyone could choose to not vote after all the blood sweat and tears shed in our history to ensure that freedom.

The only blood shed I believe we should be concerned with was that upon the cross.

A valid point. However, freedom isn' t cheap. The freedom to believe like we do for instance and worship how we see fit.  I don't think we ought to cheapen these freedoms by trivializing them.

The right to vote (although Mr. Justice Scalia doesn't think the right exists) is the right not to vote. Failure to exercise a right you feel should be doesn't "trivialize" it. What WOULD trivialize voting is to compel voting, either by law or by guilt-mongering.

[kanham]

 I respect the argument that a non-vote for one is like voting for the other but what happens when you don't believe in the values of either candidate? What happens when you see that both are just trying to use you to be elected so that their side can make big bucks?

We lived in Iowa for seven years and we were in the middle of the caucus so I was able to watch as Christians were herded like cattle to the voting booths so that when in power the party could turn their backs on all the promises made.

I have often heard it said you pick the lesser of two evils but if we have already identified the sides as evil why would I a Christ-follower want to put my endorsement on either side?

If believers actually pulled their votes then maybe just maybe a certain party would actually keep their word instead of paying lip service. Instead people vote for the lesser of two evils and can't figure out why everything stays evil.

Just my personal POV.

[Jaime]

I sympathize Kanham. I grit my teeth as I say it, but it is and always has been a case of picking the lesser of two evils. I don't believe that withholding a vote will do much if any good, but I have been tempted. I think Ronald Reagan's opinion was about right. He advocated being active in the primary process and work like crazy to get your candidate nominated. After the nomination, support the party's nominee. May not be a perfect process, but it is what it is. I believe a 3rd party effort will only succeed as a replacement of one of the top 2 parties and not as a true 3rd party effort. There's nothing new in politics. It is and has been a frustrating endeavor for the entire history of the country. We are not experiencing anything new really. Republicans have never been as conservative as most of us would like and the Democrats have never been as liberal as their voters would like. It's still a dance in the middle of the floor when everything is said and done.

[Bon Voyage]

I sympathize Kanham. I grit my teeth as I say it, but it is and always has been a case of picking the lesser of two evils. I don't believe that withholding a vote will do much if any good, but I have been tempted. I think Ronald Reagan's opinion was about right. He advocated being active in the primary process and work like crazy to get your candidate nominated. After the nomination, support the party's nominee. May not be a perfect process, but it is what it is. I believe a 3rd party effort will only succeed as a replacement of one of the top 2 parties and not as a true 3rd party effort. There's nothing new in politics. It is and has been a frustrating endeavor for the entire history of the country. We are not experiencing anything new really. Republicans have never been as conservative as most of us would like and the Democrats have never been as liberal as their voters would like. It's still a dance in the middle of the floor when everything is said and done.

Politicians promise things to get elected.  Then they use my tax money to buy votes for the next time they need elected.  It is about money, power, and prestige.  It is certainly not about the people.

Most Republicans don't care.  Democrats certainly don't care.

[spurly]

What would happen if independents got a majority of seats in the House or Senate?  How would the committees be formed?

[Jaime]

What would happen if independents got a majority of seats in the House or Senate?  How would the committees be formed?

Well, they would then cease to be "independents" and would be the majority party. They couldn't be independent of the 2 major parties if they are one. I assume they would also make up the majority of the committees formed.

No matter what a politician is called or which party he affiliates with, it still goes back to the essence of Gary's post, even for independents.

When getting re-elected is taken out of the equation, that is when we will see who the real statesmen and stateswomen are. Serve and leave. They all get carried away with their importance and the pay and benefits ain't bad either.

[navyvet]

What would happen if independents got a majority of seats in the House or Senate?  How would the committees be formed?

Well, they would then cease to be "independents" and would be the majority party. They couldn't be independent of the 2 major parties if they are one. I assume they would also make up the majority of the committees formed.

Must have slept through civics as well  (): Just because a majority of senators and/or representatives would compose their respective chambers doesn't demand that they organize themselves as a party. Remember, the whole notion of majority/minority leader/whip/whatever is a creation of the party system that was not contemplated by the Constitutional Convention: there's nothing about political parties in Article I.

They would undoubtedly organize themselves in some way, probably through their speaker, but not necessarily or inevitably under new party lines.

[Jaime]

I agree Navyvet, but a majority of Senators with (I) after their name would mean the (I)'s have the majority, thus the committee seats would reflect that wouldn't it, even if they didn't coagulate into a new "party"?

[navyvet]

I agree Navyvet, but a majority of Senators with (I) after their name would mean the (I)'s have the majority, thus the committee seats would reflect that wouldn't it, even if they didn't coagulate into a new "party"?

But "majority" carries with it - as in voting itself - a perception of unity over something. What you really have with a so-called "majority" of independents is, in fact, a plurality of a whole lot of one-member constituencies. In other words, a whole lot of one-person "parties."

The best you can get out of that situation is an extremely fragile coalition, if you can even get that. Votes would coalesce around issues, not parties, and only those issues that could 50% + 1. Not a recipe for a lot of legislation, for what that's worth. Maybe that would be a good thing.

[ConnieLard]

I don't understand how anyone could choose to not vote after all the blood sweat and tears shed in our history to ensure that freedom.

The only blood shed I believe we should be concerned with was that upon the cross.

A valid point. However, freedom isn' t cheap. The freedom to believe like we do for instance and worship how we see fit.  I don't think we ought to cheapen these freedoms by trivializing them.

If you don't mind sharing, why would voting be such a negative thing for you?

-----------------------
PS. The Moderators may want to split this off into the political forums under WJV - Would Jesus Vote?

2Ti 2:4
No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of [this] life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Most of you probably already know this, but David Lipscomb, among others, felt strongly that a Christian should not vote.  I know that there are some today who feel this way, too.  And it's not due to the fact that they don't find a candidate they feel they can support.  It's a basic belief that a Christian is not to take part in the affairs of the state, as our kingdom is not of the world when we are followers of Christ (or something to that effect).

[Jaime]

I agree Navyvet, but a majority of Senators with (I) after their name would mean the (I)'s have the majority, thus the committee seats would reflect that wouldn't it, even if they didn't coagulate into a new "party"?

But "majority" carries with it - as in voting itself - a perception of unity over something. What you really have with a so-called "majority" of independents is, in fact, a plurality of a whole lot of one-member constituencies. In other words, a whole lot of one-person "parties."

The best you can get out of that situation is an extremely fragile coalition, if you can even get that. Votes would coalesce around issues, not parties, and only those issues that could 50% + 1. Not a recipe for a lot of legislation, for what that's worth. Maybe that would be a good thing.

Good comments, thanks. That could possibly quell a lot of the partisanship going on. And that would be a good thing!