Third Party Candidates Unite part 2

This is a response to the comment made on my recent post entitled “Third Party Candidates Unite”. This is Greg’s comment (abbreviated):

Matthew, Matthew -I can't believe you wrote, "...I don’t endorse any of them either, but I would rather have any of them as president than either of the two republicrats." Are you serious, my friend? Did you really mean to say that you would rather have hard-core liberals [who favor abortion and homosexual "rights"] C. McKinney or R. Nader as President than either the Democrat, who himself is a hard-core liberal - I can understand that - the three are three peas in a pod, but to prefer them over Republican McCain? That is a little too much for me.. . . I would never want either Obama, McKinney or Nader - and their pro-death, pro-homosexual agenda which to me - transcends any other issue - the war, immigration, education, the economy or anything else.

To say “I would rather have…” is presumptuous and irrelevant because God in His infinite wisdom knows better than I what would be best, especially when it comes to choosing between those who are far out of his will. God knows what will happen in the future and we don’t know who will repent and who won’t. But this does not mean that we are left without guide as to how we should vote. We need to pay attention to ALL of what the Bible says.

In light of the fact that McCain voted no on ENDA and hate crimes legislation, and voted yes on DOMA, I would say that you have a valid point. (I think I am safe assuming that both Nader and McKinney take the opposite position on these issues.) One of the most important principles in my political philosophy is that government should not do anything that encourages sinful behavior. But one should consider that murdering babies and sodomy are not the only two sins that governments encourage.

I would make three important counterpoints:

1. McCain has stated that he supports same-sex civil unions (gay marriage by another name).

2. McCain voted for embryonic stem cell research (not just legalizing it, but forcing taxpayers to pay for it), has stated that he believes that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest, personally sued the Wisconsin Right-to-Life, and was a member of the gang of 14. Furthermore, (and this one takes the cake) McCain did vote to increase Title X funds for healthcare organizations with no exclusion for abortion providers and Bush did sign it into law, resulting in more millions going to Planned Parenthood which they can legally use for abortions under this legislation. (I go into depth about this in an accompanying post.) The only way that he could be more pro-abortion is if he voted with Obama on the Born Alive Act (and I don’t know where Nader and McKinney stand on that one).

3. The four principles on which the four third party candidates agreed on are not insignificant issues from a biblical standpoint.

a) The Foreign Policy principle is consistent with teachings of Christ that we should try to make peace with other nations. Our current policy, which McCain supports, encourages the killing of innocent civilians. The lives our soldiers and the Iraq people are just as precious in God’s eyes as an unborn child. In reference to Babylon (which is modern day Iraq), Revelation 18:4 says, “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”

b) The Privacy principle is not quite as important as the others, but at least this is a case where the Republican establishment has no respect for the Constitution. This violates the Biblical principle that one should obey the laws of the land.

c) The National Debt issue is also an important one. Passing debt onto future generations is a form of theft, which violates the Ten Commandments. Clearly, theft is not just armed robbery, but Jesus demonstrated that cheating people is just as bad and should not be tolerated. (Remember the moneychangers?)

d) The Federal Reserve issue is the same principle as the National Debt. Anyone who helps to perpetrate this fraud is guilty of theft.

I am not saying that people should vote for Nader or McKinney and neither is Ron Paul. I think that it would be FAR better for someone to not vote at all than to vote for Nader or McKinney. But the fact that they at least have taken a correct stand on the four principles is noteworthy and a step in right direction. I still support the idea put forth by votepact.org to get people to not vote for either Obama or McCain. I think it is worthwhile to ask people to take a look at what each of “the four” have to say just for the sake of hearing a different side than what the news media is presenting. Note that Congressman Paul CANNOT endorse Baldwin or Barr under Republican Party rules because they are running against a Republican.

Ron Paul is the type of person who will reach out to people to find common ground and work for good. But there is very little common ground between him and McCain/Obama. Some McKinney supporters actually crossed over and voted for RP in the primary and his influence on their supporters can’t be overlooked. His message that government involvement in the environment issue is part of the problem resonates with some in this group. A person who speaks against the government’s over-involvement in marriage and the classification of people by race, birth status (born or unborn), and sexual orientation will also resonate better with the Nader/McKinney crowd than some warmongering, pro-life-with-exceptions guy saying ban gay marriage and get rid of affirmative action. I do think that RP should be careful not to get too cozy with these two, and perhaps the title of this article is inappropriate. It is tempting to side with anybody who opposes the establishment, especially when progress can be made on ballot access and debate access issues.

Ralph Nader did co-found an excellent consumer advocacy organization, The Public Citizen, which informs people of various problems with various products such as pharmaceuticals (Worst Pills, Best Pills). Nader should stick to informing people in this way about these issues instead advocating over-regulation against them, so that people can still make their own choices. Both Nader/McKinney would have to repent of their positions on abortion and homosexuality before I could even think about endorsing them. If they are listening to what Ron Paul is saying, I wouldn’t underestimate the chances of that happening. (I am not holding my breath on that one, though.)

I could even vote for McCain or Obama if they would repent. But they have much, much more to repent of (I haven’t mentioned the half of it on this post). For an example of the type of repentance statement that I would be looking for, click here. But saying that you’re for same-sex civil unions and then saying that you’re against them in the same interview, doesn’t cut it with me. I am done with arguing over who is the worst among candidates that we both know that we are not going to vote for anyway. Such arguing is fruitless and we would be better off getting back to talking about candidates that we support or might support. This post is getting too long, so I’ll discuss Baldwin and Barr later.