Voting
Oct 27, 2004 Uncategorized
{ MOOD: Swell | TIVO: “Wife Swap” }
Thanks to Steve for this good article by John Piper on voting even when you are disillusioned.
Here’s the summary:
Now, if you are dissatisfied today the way I am, why vote? The answer is that if you don’t, you are guilty of the very oversimplification you condemn. There is no escape from responsibility by pointing out the imperfections of leaders. That is the only kind of leaders there will ever be. Our calling in this world is not to wait for the arrival of the perfect, but to pick our way through the thicket of flaws. We would be arrogant to put ourselves above this fray and say, “A curse on both your houses.”
The Lord Jesus does not give us this luxury of disengagement. He says, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Caesar—even pagan Caesar—has his claim on our lives. Why? Because God Almighty, whom we serve above all men, made human governments his way of running the world. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1). In a democratic republic like ours that means at least: VOTE.
October 28th, 2004 at 12:34 am
I totally disagree. I think there is a huge difference in admitting that we don’t have perfect choices and leaders and being forced into choosing two candidates who both hold very, very immoral positions (in my opinion). Now if you can in good concience vote for one of the two possibilities, then go right ahead, but I think it is arrogant to “guilt” me into making a choice against my concience when I can’t support either candidate. Would we accept just any two candidates that would be possibilities? For more on this watch the rerun of tonight’s South Park.
dp
October 28th, 2004 at 12:41 am
Oh, and this isn’t aimed at you or Steve or anything, just the general attitude of “rock the vote” or else, sucks. Oh, and since when does not voting have anything to do with paying taxes? Are we taking scripture out of context? And when he quotes Romans about God instituting government, and that we are to obey laws he equates that with voting. Not accurate. Last time I checked it wasn’t the LAW that you had to vote.
And yes i still like much of what John Piper says (just not in this article).
October 28th, 2004 at 1:31 am
I just think this kind of disillusionment and “i dont’ like either party, hmph” is a result of the luxury we have in this country, the freedom to choose leaders that best fit our conscience.
Don’t like either of the current candidates? It’s because you haven’t been involved at the local level in getting the man you really want to be president on to the ballot! It is posssible in this country, it just takes a lot of time, commitment, and energy. Something very few of us have.
Not to vote is to not take advantage of a very large blessing we have in this country, the freedom to elect a leader that we want.
Vote your conscience. I’d be interested in hearing the “very very immoral” position you think bush is taking btw Dan…
Also, if you don’t vote, don’t even START to complain about the president.
I don’t think it is a biblical mandate that we must vote, i just think it is unwise to not make use of such a powerful priviledge. (even if i can’t spell privelege)
October 28th, 2004 at 8:14 am
I am not saying I agree with everything Piper says, but this to me stuck out: There is no escape from responsibility by pointing out the imperfections of leaders. That is the only kind of leaders there will ever be. Our calling in this world is not to wait for the arrival of the perfect, but to pick our way through the thicket of flaws. We would be arrogant to put ourselves above this fray and say, “A curse on both your houses.”
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I can say that much of my attitude this year has stemmed from pointing out the imperfections of the two major candidates. This article was a great reproof of my attitude.
October 28th, 2004 at 8:44 am
Matt Said “Also, if you don’t vote, don’t even START to complain about the president.”
This is a common misconception we have with the logic of voting. Now I’m using an extreme example, (although I don’t think we are all that far off), but let’s say Stalin and Sadaam were running for President, we could say that Sadaam is the lesser of two evils because he killed less people, but I really doubt that people would be offended by those who would withhold their vote because neither candidate represents them. See what I’m saying? I pay my taxes and really try to give to my community around me, but I just can’t in good concience vote for two very bad candidates. Do I really automatically get the “good citizen” award (with the benefits of complaining about our leader) just because I vote for some third party candidate who will never have a chance in hell to become President? Saying that every vote counts is also nonsense, but i’m not going to go into that.
I think it is my right as an American to withold my vote for moral reasons and still be able to complain (although I hope I won’t too much, whether I do or don’t vote.) And just to let you know, I am voting in this election, just not for President.
October 28th, 2004 at 9:25 am
I voting for Jessica Simpson.
Dang it, I just realized she is too young.
Instead, I shall vote for Charo.
Dang it, I just realized she is not American-born.
I have finally decided…I shall vote for Jon Stewart. Yes, Jon Stewart shall be president.
October 28th, 2004 at 10:06 am
I was just gonna go ahead and vote for steve jobs, and then for Bono as president of the world.
Hey, did I mention I got an apple tattoo on my wrist? I was thinking of putting it on my forhead but that might be a little too obvious. I heard you can’t buy things in apple stores without an apple tattoo.
Dan - two words about your saddam/stalin election hypothetical: STRAW MAN.
Every vote counts. There were several counties in Iowa last election that were decided by ONE VOTE.
Still interested in hearing what Bush’s immoral positions are… not saying everything he does is perfect, because that is far from the truth, but out and out immoral? enlighten me.
October 28th, 2004 at 10:12 am
It would be a straw-man to make a direct correlation, but since I pointed out that I was exaggerating to make a point, then we would call it intentional HYPERBOLE. I don’t have time this minute to make the case against Bush, but how about lying, decieving and going to a war without just cause and killing thousands of civilians including women and children to start?
October 28th, 2004 at 10:23 am
dan, i’m interested too; though I’d like to point out that so far your comments have been full of fallacies.
Straw Man and Hasty Generalization and Appeal to Ignorance (intentional hyperbole isn’t exactly valid just because it’s intentional)
October 28th, 2004 at 12:08 pm
Bush isn’t perfect, but I’m voting for him for primarily two reasons:
1. He wants to kill terrorists and those who harbor them.
2. He’s Pro-Life
That’s basically it. All this talk of education, prescription drugs for seniors, health-care issues don’t really matter if a) our country is attacked by terrorists regularly and b) we don’t value innocent human life (the first “right” recognized in the Declaration of Independence).
I’m finding that I have to prioritize the issues I care about. Pick the two or three things that are important to me and vote that way. I can’t see how a Christian who believes in the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage could in good conscience vote for Kerry.
October 28th, 2004 at 1:55 pm
When I read this snippet, I could feel my blood pressure rising. It looks like Dan did, too. I don’t want to leave him out in the cold here, but I could also rant and rave on the type of opinions presented here for hours, and I don’t have the time right now, nor the desire to upset anyone unnecessarily with the ill-crafted responses I’m tempted to post.
So, I would like to do a trackback to this post sometime in the future, Noel. In the meantime, I’d just like to point out some of my posts on the forums I made awhile back that could be relevant to some of the issues brought up here. They were on a thread entitled “God is not a Republican or a Democrat.” Here’s my first and second large posts there.
October 28th, 2004 at 2:05 pm
Oh, and third.
October 28th, 2004 at 2:12 pm
i believe in th sanctity of marriage and life, and I am voting for Kerry. Why do I have to vote for someone on the republican ticket in order to be a christian. Sorry dude, but my salvation and status as a God loving and fearing woman has nothing to do with who I vote for.
October 28th, 2004 at 4:47 pm
Oh, and I hope I have not caused ill will by MY badly crafted posts. I’m just trying to think out loud and get others to think outside of what the mainstream media is handfeeding us. And if my posts have come across too pointedly, please forgive me and understand that my kid has been sick and has kept me up the past two nights, so I probably shouldn’t even be posting.
luvies
October 28th, 2004 at 5:06 pm
Interesting. This all started with a reproof I felt in my attitude toward President Bush and Senator Kerry. This has expanded quite a bit.
Love and Kisses,
Noel “Ross Perot” Heikkinen
October 28th, 2004 at 5:37 pm
amy - i know lots of people who have pendulum swung to the other direction and are voting for kerry as a reaction to the “christian right wing”. I hope you aren’t one of them.
I cannot believe that you believe in the sanctity of marriage and life and are still going to vote for kerry. your actions speak louder than your words.
October 28th, 2004 at 5:59 pm
Matt Matt Matt **NOEL SHAKES HIS HEAD**
I thought thataccording to this you weren’t going to fight over this anymore.
Tsk Tsk Tsk
October 28th, 2004 at 7:03 pm
Another quick thought:
Every vote counts. There were several counties in Iowa last election that were decided by ONE VOTE.”
Just to make sure about this… do you know what sort of elections and in which counties? Here is the reason I ask. I’ve heard that sort of thing before, and I think more often than not such statements are born more out of a desire to have them be true rather than out of reflection upon actual events.
October 28th, 2004 at 9:30 pm
Tony Campolo believes, fairly strongly, that Bush is showing the lesser evangelical-christian view in his policies.
Oz Guinness also has some interesting views on how polarized the Christian church has become in America.
Interesting analysis on pro-life words versus pro-life in action by the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary.
October 28th, 2004 at 10:29 pm
The interesting thing in all this to me is the debate over what “peace” really means. It seems to me the more left-leaning, liberal Christians think they have some corner on that market. Does peace mean never going to war or fighting to protect the innocent so that they can have peace? I think the Bible very clearly states that there are times you go to war.
Not sure how you can be pro-life and vote Democratic, however? Not saying the GOP is God’s Old Party, of course. At one time there were pro-life Democrats, but they’re hard to find nowadays, like hen’s teeth, as they used to say.
I think some people have just a natural knee-jerk reaction to being in the same area code as someone they stereotype as the “religious right,” whatever that is. Maybe it’s the Christians who where suits and have thinning hair (shudder).
Anyway, I think we all have a lot of thinking to do over why we lean toward one candidate or party over the other. Maybe we’re not as open-minded as we like to think.
Like the graffiti artists used to say, question everything.
October 28th, 2004 at 11:00 pm
“I don’t have time this minute to make the case against Bush, but how about lying, decieving and going to a war without just cause and killing thousands of civilians including women and children to start?”
Oh, I love ya brother (even though I don’t know much about you except that you like Van, like me, and that means you have at least some good in ya
) but that sounds like you you have completely swallowed the Michael Moore/Moveon.org line. (Unless you were being sarcastic. Sometime my sarcasm antennae don’t work so good.)
October 29th, 2004 at 12:02 am
At the risk of bogarting this thread, here’s an interesting article on the subject:
http://www.boundless.org/regulars/office_hours/a0000958.html
October 29th, 2004 at 9:27 am
Tim, your post itself is not a coherent argument that my comments were full of fallicies. If I were writing a thesis on this subject I’m sure my arguments would be more comprehensive, but a comments section on a blog is not a place to make that point.
Dan B.,
Hey, I know you mean well, but i feel that you have piegon-holed me into the Michael Moore camp of which I do not associate my beliefs with. I was against the war and the president’s tone about the war before we even invaded Iraq. None of this administration’s arguments have convinced me that we have ever been in immediate danger and so must, as a last resort go to war. And so, by going to war we have killed and estimated 7000+ civilians in Iraq including women and children. I think war is neccesary sometimes, but I haven’t been convinced that this was the time. Now, there of course could be things behind the scenes that we don’t know about that are confidential that could be keys that lead to the rational behind heading to war. But we can’t just assume tha,t and blindly trust our government. We must vote on what we know. Making any sense?
October 29th, 2004 at 10:00 am
oh, and I’m not voting for Kerry either (which michael moore and company are) for similar reasons that I’m not voting for Bush, but does anyone care?
October 29th, 2004 at 10:01 am
You do make sense to me Dan, I just trust that Bush truly felt that it was a last resort.
I base this on the fact that I believe he has shown himself as a man of his word in other areas.
Many people call this a pre-emptive strike, and yet it wasn’t pre-emptive, 9/11 was an attack on us. Granted, the terrorists involved in that were Saudis, but many were trained in Iraq, and the Saudis don’t have such a crazy leader like Saddam was.
October 29th, 2004 at 10:03 am
Also, you said that Bush lied. When? Even Clinton and Kerry believed that Saddam had WOMD.
Sorry, I know I shouldn’t bring this up on a blog…I just couldn’t help it.
October 29th, 2004 at 10:35 am
thanks for your grace inultus. I totally think your view of Bush is viable and you should vote for him. Any evidence I bring showing Bush lying can be discredited by anyone saying, “well thats a liberal news source” or something like that, so my goal here is not to convince people of my position, but maybe you will at least think about it and not discredit it without examining your own position?
Anyway I will resort to a cheap potshot that is very funny anyway, watch this…
http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/dsbush.html
October 29th, 2004 at 10:48 am
Hey Dan,
Sorry, didn’t mean to pigeonhole you. It’s so easy to attach labels. I was being slightly facetious when I said that. Sorry.
As for the 7,000 civilians killed. That number is debatable, but in any case, Saddam was killling way more than that before we got there. And now the fact is that thousands of refugees and expatriates are returning to Iraq. The news has to focus on the fighting going on but there is lots of positive stuff happening.
My brother is a planner in Kansas City area and a university professor from Iraq and a Baghdad city councilman visited their city hall recently. They’re touring the country studying American municipal government. They told his city council and a public audience that there is no question that life is better for Iraqis right now. It’s a difficult time but the vast majority of people are hopeful.
And for those concerned about women’s rights, you should be very happy about what is happening to the women of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Peace out.
October 29th, 2004 at 10:53 am
Oh, one more… http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/abc-bushlie.html
here is an interesting interview with Pat Buchanan on why the war was a bad idea…
http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/mp3/buchananinterview.html
I agree with alot of what Pat has to say.
On the flip side the strongest thing compelling me to vote for Bush is his ban on partial-birth abortions. i just don’t know how much he can do to change abortion laws in the future because I don’t think congress is going to approve Supreme Court justices that will overturn Roe vs. Wade. I think a more important thing than voting will be helping the people around have a high value of life and the desire to live selflessly.
October 29th, 2004 at 11:44 am
While I like Bush’s “strong character” when it came to 9/11 and the way he handled it, and I even supported the war at first, his administration makes me uneasy, and I’m starting to wonder why we went to war …
Also while I agree with Bush on the abortion issue (”sactity of life”) the whole “sanctity of marriage” issue I dissagree with him on.
I don’t think the fact that society wants to let people sin has anything to do with Gods institution. Our society as a whole is allowed to define marriage for itself. This isn’t going to “destroy the institution of marriage” as far as Christianity is concerned.
As long as the government isn’t telling churches they MUST marry same-sex couples, I don’t see why we need to worry about this issue as far as the “institution of marriage” is concerned.
I’m not saying same-sex marriage is a good idea. In fact it’s a bad one, but acting like it can some how pollute Christian marriage is slightly ridiculous.
SEAN
October 29th, 2004 at 2:17 pm
remember two things.
1. popcicles belong in the freezer.
2. what would elvis do?
October 29th, 2004 at 3:32 pm
Here’s that Southpark video. I rate it PG13, so beware.
http://www.lezopher.com/movies/sthpk%20vote%20or%20die.mov
October 29th, 2004 at 7:21 pm
as usual.
trey and matt are geniouses
more than mildly vulgar geniouses, but geniouses nonetheless.
“geniouses” is a weird word … as is “nonetheless”
SEAN
October 30th, 2004 at 12:04 am
I would just like to point out two small details…
there are NOT only 2 people running for president.
And although my mom would disagree and say that voting for someone other than one of the 2 major political parties ends up splitting the vote and causing the ‘Bad Guy’ to win, (i.e.Kerry) ( her words not mine) we are to vote for who we think would make the best president, not for who is most likely to win. If we got informed about the other candidates , we might stop complaining about the lack of choice and become truly democratic.
October 30th, 2004 at 2:10 pm
in Ohio we only get 2 choices…
and i am with Dan - i can’t give my support to either one of them.
October 30th, 2004 at 2:13 pm
If anyone is still paying attention.
We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Democracy does not work on the scale of the United States.
Also: Given the choice, I would vote for Alan Keyes as president.
That or Steve Jobs and John Stewart, and then Bono for president of the world.
November 1st, 2004 at 8:58 am
final word.
Bush and the Republicans are pro-life. Kerry and the Democrats are not.
Bush is a born-again Christian. Some here and elsewhere think that Bush’s faith is fake. I don’t think so. But I know Kerry is a-religious and his attempt in the last days to wear his faith on his sleeve is, indeed, fake.
November 1st, 2004 at 9:27 am
Bush better be Christian! The Moral Majority makes up his greatest supporter. All he has to to is to keep talking about it in public and kill the evildoers….
November 1st, 2004 at 9:08 pm
Dan? Does the Moral Majority as an organization even exist anymore? Ease up buddy. You’re talking about/labeling people you’re going to spend eternity with.
Here’s a link to a video on Bush’s faith journey. Look for the “Inner Strength” video.
http://www.letfreedomring.com/
November 2nd, 2004 at 2:09 pm
The “Right” the “moral majority” etc…that’s what they call themselves, I’m not labeling them. But it’s not wrong to disagree with people who I will be spending eternity with. And remember how God has been used thoughout our American History to justify the killing of indians, slavery, segregation and on and on. Do I need to agree with these people just because they are Christians? No. Being saved by God’s grace does not somehow prove moral superiority, and in looking at our past, we should probably be suspicious of polititians using God for their own gain. http://www.ochuk.com spells this out much better than I.
November 2nd, 2004 at 4:33 pm
OK, dude:
“The “Right” the “moral majority” etc…that’s what they call themselves,”
No. They don’t call “themselves” that. It’s a pejorative term used by some, mostly those who oppose Christian values, and is meant to elicit a negative reaction.
“But it’s not wrong to disagree with people who I will be spending eternity with.”
Nobody said it’s wrong to disagree with “them.”
“And remember how God has been used thoughout our American History to justify the killing of indians, slavery, segregation and on and on.”
So what are you saying? Are you putting the “moral majority” in that camp? What does that have to do with us today and how you or I vote or the opinions we hold? Is no one supposed to mention God. Does mentioning God automatically make a person “fake.” How about a person who doesn’t mention their faith until two weeks before the end of the election compared to someone whose testimony has been consistent over the last 20 years?
“Do I need to agree with these people just because they are Christians? No.”
No. I agree with you. Nobody said you had to. At least not me.
“Being saved by God’s grace does not somehow prove moral superiority, and in looking at our past, we should probably be suspicious of polititians using God for their own gain.”
Agreed. But we also judge men and women by their actions. By their “fruit.” Have you ever met Bush? Do you know him? You cynically accuse him of being a Christian for his own “gain.” How do you know that’s the case?
Wow.
November 2nd, 2004 at 5:33 pm
1. Yes they do call themselves the Right it is not just a term used to illicit reaction. “Right” is a term that defines the leaning of a politician just as the “Left” lean the other way. They also call themselves conservative, same thing. I was not trying to put a negative label on them, only pointing out the some of Bush’s biggest supporters are the Christian Right.
2. I was not putting anyone in the camp of Indian killers, but I am positive that Bush has used his faith for political gain and that makes me suspicious. I’m not saying that he has necessarily done anything wrong or hypocritical with this faith, but the precident has been set that people use God to justify anything. In this case some people would say to justify an unjust war.
3. I know that Bush uses his faith for political gain because he talks so much about it. He has writers that carefully place references to God and these are not just flippant statements that he’s making, these are well planned out , well placed words used to beckon the Christian Right (may I use this term?). I am not, however calling into question Bush’s actually faith. It may all be very genuine indeed, but to think that there aren’t politics behind his words mean that you are kidding yourself.
4. Judging by Bush’s actions I would say that he has done some very unchristian things have have impacted many people. So yes, I agree that we judge on people’s actions.
“How about a person who doesn’t mention their faith until two weeks before the end of the election compared to someone whose testimony has been consistent over the last 20 years? “
5. I’m not voting for Kerry!!!! I don’t think he is any better!!!!
6. wow
November 2nd, 2004 at 5:38 pm
I would like to say this year’s more important election is Dan vs. Dan
November 2nd, 2004 at 6:02 pm
I vote for Dan Benson because he loves Van Morrison more than I do!
November 4th, 2004 at 9:54 am
Boosh!
BTW, Dan, just one comment I have to make. I don’t see Bush as using his faith for political gain any more than Noel talking about his own Christian life/faith.
I’m sure that sometimes doing so is meant to help us respect/understand him as a pastor and as a person. We can then identify with him better, and yes, be more likely to return to church, and possibly even support him financially.
If I make a point of stating something which is true to gather supporters around me, I think that is smartly bringing people together. If Bush is truly a Christian, then his version of “political gain” should really be in tune with “God’s gain” in which case I’m glad that he shares his faith. End rant.
November 4th, 2004 at 10:51 am
And I respect your opinion. I personally disagree, but I see where you are coming from.