Thursday, February 09, 2012

Conscience, Compromise and the Sacredness of Your Vote

I had a conversation a few days ago with some Republicans about voting your conscience.  I argued that I could not vote for any Republican except Ron Paul and would vote for a third party or independent candidate or no one at all if the Republican Party did not nominate Ron Paul.  I told them that I had not voted for any Republican or Democrat for President in the general election since Bob Dole (and that I would even take that vote back if I could because it was an unacceptable compromise).  We argued about whether there is a real difference between Obama and the Republican establishment candidates.  We argued about whether the United States would last as nation longer with the Republicans in power or the Democrats.  I argued that the Republican establishment has supported No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D, and even the funding of Planned Parenthood while they had control of all federal branches of government. I challenged them to tell me even one instance where they repealed a bad law previously enacted by the Democrats during those six years. The Bush tax cut law was the only thing that they could come up with.  But I argued that this is meaningless if spending is not also cut (and in fact, it wasn't).  If spending is not cut, then you (or your grandchildren) are eventually going have pay back that extra money anyway.  I also contended that God is in control, he is more powerful than Obama, so we don't have worry about him being reelected.  Just do the right thing, and let God manage the consequences.

They argued that you don't have to endorse everything that a candidate believes in order to vote for that candidate.  I agreed because no two people on earth are going agree on everything, but where do draw the line?  What if Hitler was the Republican nominee?  Would you still be saying, "That Hitler is really bad, but we just can't let that Obama get back in office!!!"  The only sensible place to draw the line is this:

If a candidate has clearly demonstrated that he intends to use the power of his office for evil in any instance, then voting for this candidate should be out of the question.

Very simple, isn't it?  You may not agree with everything that a candidate believes, but if you vote for a candidate that intends to use his power to promote sin, then you are participating in the evil that is accomplished if that candidate takes office.  The Bible teaches us not to be "unequally yoked with unbelievers" and "Be not ye therefore partakers with them."  Clearly, there is no difference between voting for such a candidate, and doing these evil things yourself.  This does not mean that the candidate must be in favor of the particular punishment that you think is fit for particular sin, or even if that particular sin should be against the law at all, as long as the minimum standards of Biblical justice are upheld.  This does not even mean that you can't vote for candidate who has used his power for evil in the past--for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  But if a candidate has clearly demonstrated a pattern of using his power to promote wicked behavior, and shows no remorse for what he has done and does not even acknowledge that what he has done is evil, but instead defends it--it is then unreasonable to vote for that candidate regardless of how wicked any opposing candidates may be.

Violating the Constitution is a form of lawlessness and lawlessness is sin. I am not saying to vote for Ron Paul--I am struggling with this decision myself--he is a borderline candidate.  But please, please do not vote Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney in the primary or the general election.  There is no question that they are unacceptable.  They have no respect for the Constitution.  They have all supported legislation which funds abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.  Send them a message that they can't get away with it!  Please, stop and think about this before voting!

No comments:

Post a Comment