voting question

well I guess it is a political question, here goes! lets say there are 2 candidates inn a election, now being a christian I am kinda supposed to vote right? anyway lets say there are none of the candidates that"fit"
my views or are both anti biblical would it be better not to vote? or to go for the "lesser of two evils" ( which in my view is still evil) ? like to hear any views on this

Since there's no law that says you have to vote, I don't see how you would feel a spiritual obligation to do so.

What makes you say that as a Christian you are "supposed" to vote? As an American you should vote. It is a right that many died for, especially if you are a woman and/or a minority, but I don't see it as a particularly Christian duty.

You have a few options. You can protest the evilness of both candidates by not voting, or by voting a 3rd party candidate, or by filling in a name -- there's always an option to write in a candidate who isn't on the ballot. I know "Mickey Mouse" always gets a handful of votes every presidential election that way. I haven't heard, but I suspect "Jesus Christ" also gets some write-in votes as well.

Since such votes would mostly be throw-away votes, your other option is to look at the two candidates and see which one is more Biblical, or follows Christ's teachings more. For example, one might be an athiest, but his policies are in line with Christ's teachings. So he himself is not a Christian, but his administration would be good for the county. The other candidate might claim to be a Christian, but his behavior is not in tune with what Jesus taught, so voting for him might not necessarily be WJWD.

I've tried to start a discussion in this thread about the issues, so we can make discussions based on issues rather on people. There was some discussion; I bet we could spark some more.

As a statistician, I approach it this way - what is the probability that your vote will make an appreciable difference in the elections? Since our governmental system doesn't utilize proportional representation, especially when it comes to the presidential election, the probabilities are incomprehensibly small that any individual's vote will "count" in any appreciable sense. In other words, abstention may be a reasonable solution for individuals. GD gives the option of abstention to Christians, but not, seemingly, to Americans in general, who "should vote." Rather, I think that's a perfectly American solution too.

Of course, some may argue that if everyone abstained, we wouldn't have a democracy. However, it will never be the case that this sort of argument wins over so many people that the phenomenon will become problematic. If yesterday's Superbowl viewership numbers are any indication, the public at large will always throw their (sometimes very zealous) support into contests, even when their support has no effect on the outcome. Let's also keep in mind that if everybody were a fireman, we wouldn't have any teachers, but that's no argument against firemen.

A different sort of argument is that abstention is democratic apostasy, since voting is portrayed not only as a right but also a duty; e.g. GrungeDiva's first paragraph. I have two responses. First, abstention itself can be an exercise of the right. Suppose I asked you whether you'd like to be shot in the foot or hand. The most "democratic" response, I wager, is not to pick one or even suggest your more acceptable ear as a write-in.

For different individuals, there may be compelling reasons to dislike the current system, not merely the politicians who inhabit it, and any sort of vote may be seen as consent not just to the politician, but to the system at large. Abstention can be, and historically has sometimes been, seen as a protest vote. I think about those parliaments who have been presented with two false choices and choose to sit in protest until they're given an actual choice.

Second, I agree that our forebears deserve respect, but they in no way obligate an individual to utilize the rights won. To take the idea to its extreme, I am thankful for the folks at Stonewall and Perry of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, but I didn't have to get married to show my respect for their personal sacrifices. To be honest, this sort of approach reeks of emotional manipulation. I heard it a lot during the last election cycle, that if I voted for Candidate X, then I was defiling the memories and sacrifices of Group Y, etc. Not hardly. Nobody's sacrifices obligate me to exercise the rights they won for me. Unthankful? No. Democratic and self-determining.

I would also caution folks against one-issue voting. More often than not, when a politician expresses a view that a voter finds conclusive, it is not because of any deeply-held belief, but because it splits the electorate along a convenient line. Especially as believers, you'll be under this sort of pressure. Individuals should resist being compelled by this sort of manipulation. Again, as a statistician, I recognize that politicians are more keenly statistical than ideological.

Mori, you have risen some important points, and I thank you for your input.

I understand what you're saying. There are so many issues, and no one candidate comes down on the "right" (or left) side of every issue. Is compromise possible? Is it Christian? Is it worth it at all?

Perhaps rather than casting a ballot and walking away, we should discuss what some of these issues are, and what we can do about them, regardless of who is in the Oval Office. I think Jesus would support that, don't you?

I definitely think so. His actions were political only in that they infringed on the apparent domain of politicians. He preferred, as far as I can tell, to actually get things done and was pretty clammy when he had audiences with the authorities. My concern at the end of the day is, I suppose, what you bring up. A lot of people hinge their entire faith on relatively unimportant displays. Participation in politics, including voting, is one of them; I'm always surprised how Christian folks become around election time.

Which issues do you think are the ones best discussed?

I would love to discuss the issue of poverty, and what can be done about it. Jesus talked about helping the poor more often, I think, than anything else. He certainly talked about it more than abortion or homosexuality, which seem to be the only issues a lot of Christians care about sometimes.

Do you think it's the job of the government to help the poor, as the Old Testament Prophets said, or do you think our government no longer needs to answer to God?

If so, what programs are best to meet those needs?

If not, how do we as Christians respond to the needs? Is it enough to feed the poor as we meet them ("downstream"), or should we also look at what causes poverty, and work on stemming the causes ("upstream")?

Are you familiar with "upstream" and "downstream"?

Wow! I could really get into this discussion. First, let me start out by admitting that my politics are extremely right wing. But I find that most of the time, my politics do line up with scriptural truths.

In the area of poverty, I believe it is our duty as Christians to do whatever we can to alleviate it; both upstream and downstream. The biggest area of disagreement, I believe, is over who should take the lead in bringing this about. I firmly believe that it is not government's job. And my reason for believing this is simple; they just don't do it very well.

There are many studies out there that prove that faith-based charities are far more efficient and effective than government welfare programs. First, who do want deciding where your charitable donations should go; some bureaucrat in Washington or your local pastor? Second, how much of your "charitable" donations to the government (otherwise known as taxes) really get to the intended targets?

And third, most faith-based programs address the underlying causes of poverty by encouraging people to rethink their priorities and reshape their lives. The "recovery rates"with faith-based charities are substantially better than with government programs. (We have the doctrine of "separation of church and state" to thank for that. The government doesn't dare suggest that maybe it would be a good idea for welfare recipients to get religion.)

So I believe that we should all become involved at some level in combatting poverty, both in this country and around the world. But I sincerely believe that our time and money will be better invested in some faith-based organization than in some government program. I would go so far as to suggest that we insist that our government "partner up" with these organizations and learn how to do it right.

God bless you guys. Let's keep this going.

Thanks for your response. It's funny, my politics are left-wing, and I find most of the time, my politics line up with Scripture. Go figure. I guess Scripture isn't political

I agree that when the government is in charge of administering programs, they tend not to be very effective. However, you would need to provide some evidence to show that faith-based charities funded by private donations are more efficient than publicly funded non-profit organizations. I have worked in that industry for many years, both for faith-based institutions and organizations who aren't related to religious groups. In my experience, those who receive funding from the government (federal and pass-through) operate at a much higher level than those who don't, which include all faith-based charities. Unless you have statistics to prove otherwise, I will have to challenge that statement.

There's a difference between programs administered by the government, and non-profit agencies who administer programs using government dollars. I would love to see the government move away from "micro-managing" and move toward more funding programs with pass-through grants.

In the Old Testament, God says, though the prophets, that it is the government's job to care for the poor. Now, you might say that our government doesn't have that same command, not being a religious nation like Judah and Israel. I'm not convinced that gets us off the hook.

I vote for the lesser (or least) of the evils.