WWJD: Presidential Elections

I had asked some weeks ago which issues in current debates people thought were "Christian values" and the only issue that came up was Israel. I'd be interested in hearing more ideas, especially in the issues where the various presidential candidates differ. I'm curious to hear what my sisters and brothers in Christ feel about those who are seeking to lead this nation (at least those of us who live in the U.S.) Have you decided who you support yet? If so, who and why? Do you think Jesus would support any particular candidate? Or would it be another one of those "give unto ceasar" things? Or would Jesus say all of the candidates are evil and need to repent? Or would he say they were all sinners but all were forgiven? Or would he say some were more in tune with God's teaching than others? If so, which? And why?

WWJVF? Who Would Jesus Vote For?

I wouldn’t presume to tell you who Jesus would vote for, if anyone. Right now I like Gingrich.

Thanks for sharing this. Can you tell me why you like brother Newt? Do you feel his policies are particularly Christian? Or do you feel he is more Christian than other candidates? Please elaborate!

Mitt Romney gave 10% of his income to charity. Newt gave about 0.5% of his. Not sure if that's a good judge of anything, but it's notable. I haven't seen the returns for any of the other republican candidates. Obama gave 6%.

Ron Paul is the only of the candidates against the war. Jesus is the prince of peace. For whatever that's worth.

Freedom of religion seems to me to be the most important issue. Allowing individuals the right to worship however (and whomever) they see fit. How do the candidates stack up on that issue?

I wouldn’t vote for Romney because, as I understand it, Romney had an ad quoting Barack Obama. What he doesn't tell you is that Obama is quoting John McCain in the ad, so it looks like Obama's statement, not McCain's. I wouldn’t vote for Obama because, as I understand it, Obama is forcing churches to give their employees free birth control.

Dear friends,

As Christians and Americans, I think we need to put this upcoming election into the right perspective. In my personal opinion, the republican candidate who best reflects my own values is Rick Santorum. However, we must realize that we live in a fallen world. The devil is out there pitching every day, trying to ensure that his slate of candidates gets elected.

I believe that we must do everything we can to stem the tide of liberalism and secularism that threatens to tip this country over the brink. And the first order of business, in my opinion, is to rid the country of the current administration. As Mark Levine recently said, " I would vote for an orange juice can over Barack Obama".

I think the question should be, not "Who would jesus vote for?" but "What does Jesus want?". Remember, He basically refused to become involved in politics with His well known "render unto Caesar" answer to the question about paying taxes. I believe that what Jesus wants is for each of us to prayerfully consider the choices we have, and ask for His guidance in selecting the candidate we will support.

Unfortunately, less than half of the population will be doing this. Therefore, I believe it is our duty as Americans to decide which candidate will ultimately do less damage to our country, and vote for that candidate in the general election. As the tea Party has said, I ckling to the hope but "you can keep the change".

God bless us all, and God bless America.

I'm not convinced that Satan has his own slate, any more than Jesus has a slate. I think all candidates have sinned and fallen short, and yet all of them are children of God who, if they repent and give their lives to Christ, will be saved. We cannot possibly know what is in their heart. We might make some guesses based on their behavior, but as I read Scripture, it really isn't our job to speculate about who may or may not be saved. Our job is to feed the hungry, heal the sick, give aid to the poor, etc., and let God worry about saving souls, which is His job.

Having said that, you do bring up a good point: and for that I thank you.

Indeed, Jesus almost certainly would not vote for Obama, or Paul, or Santorum, or Gingrich, or Romney, or any of the candidates .... Not only because he isn't an American citizen, but because, as you point out, he just wasn't caught up in politics. But yes, we should be concerned with the effects that our next Commander in Chief will have on this world which God has given us. This is why I ask the question, and why I am hoping discussion continues in a friendly manner. I believe it is vital that we consider this election carefully, because it is important. Not just as Americans, but as Christians, as children of God and heirs of the Kingdom. So far, to this point, it seems, you and I are in agreement.

However, I would like to clarify one thing you said, to make sure I understand you.

I would like to know (a) how you define "liberalism," (b) why you link it with secularism, and (c) what this "brink" is over which you think this country may tip?

First of all, I hope you are aware that there are thousands, if not millions, of liberals in the U.S. who are also devoutly religious. That is why I'm a little confused by linking "liberalism" with "secularism" and I think perhaps you and I have different understandings of the word "liberal." In fact, I was in high school before I even realized that someone could be Christian and not be liberal; before that, I just assumed all Christians were liberal, because that's what Jesus' teachings seemed to me.

Perhaps it would help if I shared with you what I -- and what many Christians who consider themselves "liberal" -- mean by that term, and why it is not contradictory with Christianity, or indeed why it is very complimentary to it.

A liberal is someone who loves without reservation. In the Greek, this kind of love is referred to as "Agape." It is the love Jesus has for us. And Jesus asks us to have it for others, even our enemies.

A liberal is someone who believes that a man who has two coats should give one of them to a man who has none.

A liberal is someone who believes that the alien in the land should be treated with justice, that the nation is responsible for caring for the widow and orphan, and those who are in need.

These are all Biblical values. I could go on, and I will if you need me to.

There are certainly planks on the Democratic platform that are un-Biblical, and there are planks on the Republican platform that are un-Biblical. And there are certainly aspects of both parties that are Biblical. It seems to me that the Democratic party shares more of these values, as outlined above, than the Republican party does, but I accept that it's up for debate.

I recommend we discuss each individual issue, maybe prioritize them, decide which issues are deal-breakers, etc. and then compare these issues to the candidates.

Amen.

I guarantee that the second statement is false. President Obama is not forcing churches to give employees free birth control. Even if he tried to do that, he wouldn't have the power to do it, because it's against the constitution. And I sincerely doubt he would want to do something like that. He supports the separation of Church and State, and such a law would conflict with that. So, if this is the only reason you're not voting for Obama, I beg you to reconsider. As I said, Freedom of Religion seems to me to be an important issue to Christians -- or at least it should be -- and Obama favors it, to my knowledge moreso than the other candidates.

As for the first statement, I have not heard of said ad; it is possible.

The Obama thing has to do with insurance, what is covered and what is not.

Ah, I see where this is going. The new health care plan requires that minimum health care provided must include prescription drug coverage. And one part of this plan is that employers over a certain size will have to provide health care for their employees.

There are a few steps between truth and "Obama is forcing churches to provide free birth control."

1) For the most part, churches are exempt from most employment laws. Congregational leaders (like priests, pastors, ministers, etc.) have a special tax status, and they are exempt from all sorts of tax laws. For example, they are not required to comply with equal opportunity employment laws -- otherwise every Catholic Church (and a lot of protestant churches) would be in violation for not allowing women.

2) As for other types of employees, A lot of churches don't have them. Very few churches have more than 1 or 2 part-time employees, let alone 100 FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS, so they would be exempt from the requirement.

3) Let's say there's a congregation that has more than 100 FTE's, and therefore needs to comply with the new requirement. Yes, they must provide the employee with health insurance that covers prescriptions, including birth control. That's not FREE birth control. That means they need to provide at least one health care option. The health care option may include a co-pay, monthly premiums, and/or deductibles. No employer is required to provide health care for free, with or without birth control.

4) Even with the new law, there are "opt-out" plans. Employers have options, if they don't want to participate, they can pay a fine instead. For some, the fine may be less expensive than providing health care. In many ways, it's more choice than employers have now.

Hope that helps.

Still ... that doesn't answer the main question ...

I like Ron Paul. Last election was my first election being of age to vote, and i voted for him then too.

I support his pro-constitutionalist views. Less Federal power, which i think is how God really intended government to be. I mean during the book of judges every man did whats was right in his own eyes. It was until they cried out for a king, because they wanted to be like surrounding pagan nations. So i support less federal involvement. More power in states rights is another thing he wants to see changed. Risky considering what happened in the 1860's concerning states rights, but i think its a healthy approach.

I support his foreign policy as well. This week or last week, even israel endorsed his stand on foreign policy and Dr. Pauls ideaolgy concerning the matter. Which i find funny considering how many of the republicans are tearing him down for his stand on that area, saying we should protect Israel more. The next week they come out and say "hey, let us defend ourselves, we don't need help."

Maybe he is not so far off....

I think he is the most consistent canidate as well. You don't see his personal life being torn apart on a daily basis. He has stood firm in the past, and continues to do so. I think that speaks measure.

He may be goofy, he may not be the best public speaker, but at least he is real. Refreshing considering the last term...

My first choice would be Ron Paul, but he's not doing good. So my next is Newt. Romney has supported too much against the word of God. Abortion and gay marriage being the first two to come to mind. Marriage is Gods institution for a man and woman. I'm not a homophobic and I have gay friends but marriage is between a man and woman. Romney passed it in Massachusetts and he'll support it on a federal level, the same Obama has done with eliminating DOMA and refusing to support it or fight for it. Also regarding abortion, Romney feels that if a minor is pregnant and the parents don't sign for the abortion she can take it to court. We don't need another leader that feels killing the future of our nation is a step in the right direction. Another thing against Romney is his faith, which can be compared to Obama's lack of. Romney has been lead astray from the Lord and his words by Joseph Smith. We need a leader who is strong and can lead us to victory, not a follower.

I don't have the right to vote in the US, but should I have it, and use it at all, I'd might, though reluctantly, vote Paul.

Okay, I get that your opinion is that Abortion is murder, and that you feel the unborn need to be protected, so you will not vote for someone who is pro-abortion. That makes total sense from a Christian point of view. Even with freedom of religion, we are called to protect others, Christian or non, and, you argue, that extends to those who have not yet been born. Am I understanding that part correctly? So most democrats and many republicans would be out for you.

I also understand not feeling comfortable about a president who is easily led astray. If he can be deceived away from Jesus and to Joseph Smith, he could easily be deceived by some other false prophet while he is in the white house. That is a valid reason not to vote for someone.

But I don't understand why you object to gay marriage as a secular right.

It is true that the Bible says a man shall not lie down with another man. So, if you think this nation should follow the Old Testament laws, then yes, a man should not be allowed to marry another man.

Do you believe that bacon should be outlawed in the US, since that is also prohibited in the Old Testament?

Sure, homosexuality is also spoken of in the New Testament. And then, so working on the Sabbath. Do you think the President of the US should prohibit all companies from conducting business on Sundays? Heck, even some banks these days have Sunday hours.

If we deny gay marriage because it's a sin, then why shouldn't we deny all things that are sins? My goodness, worshiping any God other than Christ is a sin. So all non-Christians must be outlawed in the US, right?

Seriously ... I'm not being stubborn here, I want to understand. Please explain to me what the difference is, and why some sins should be outlawed but others shouldn't. Honestly, I get that it's a sin, but I don't understand why some Christians seem to insist on legislating some sins but not others.

Why would you?

And then, why would you be reluctant about it?

I would be interested in hearing who you are leaning towards. :]

I think this is what I read about:

Obama health reform: Church-affiliated groups decry decision on birth control - Baltimore Sun

Not only was it mentioned in the Old Testament but the new as well. Also I spoke about gay marriage, not the sin of homosexuality. Marriage is God's institution, not mans. God spoke against homosexuality, he also didn't call it a sin, he called it an abomination .

By the way, here is my objection to Mitt Rommey: Mitt Romney attack ad misleadingly quotes Obama - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

I am very torn. Of the ones who are running, brother Barak is the one I dislike the least, and who seems to follow my understanding of Christian values the most. However, I have some serious problems with him, too. I may protest by not voting, or by writing in Jesus' name into the ballot, or something like that.

To me, feeding the hungry and giving aid to the poor is what Jesus spent the most time preaching about, and that's what Barak's policies are about. I don't like his international policies, but he is no worse than any of the other candidates on that, so I really don't have any Christian choice on that one.

Yes, I did mention that, in the very post you quoted. You should read an entire post before responding to it. And you should really read what you quote.

In the US, rights are given based on marital status. As long as that is the case, then marriage is the state's institution. If you want to eliminate marriage as a legal status, I would be okay with that. Marriage would be a church institution only, and would carry no legal status whatsoever. If a couple wants any legal rights, they would need to go to the courthouse to get a civil union, which can be given to a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple. But a couple who is married in the eyes of God is not given any special rights without the civil union status. I would support that compromise, instead of accepting "gay marriage."

God also called wearing mixed fibers an "abomination." Have you ever worn cotton-poly blends? If so, God is as disgusted with you as he is with a gay person. Hey, don't get upset at me, I'm just telling you what the Bible says.