« Christians & the Media | Main | Is Mormonism Christian? »

November 22, 2006

Comments

Luther once said that he would rather be ruled by a competent Turk than by an incompetent Christian.

I think some people really don't know the damage they do when they won't vote for a candidate because he doesn't share all of his or her views. Our two party system will never satisfy everyone but it's fair and it doesn't create extreme shifts in government when a different party gains more power.

Agreed...I like the Luther quote.

Whether Bush is a Christian or not is somewhat irrelevant in light of his decisions, many of which have been divisive and vague. Yet, I hear pastors praise Bush because, well, he's pro-life, as if that's good enough.

I will vote for anyone, in either party, male or female, who shows themselves able to govern and work with people in a constructive way.

Perry,

So you would be ok with a leader in the Whitehouse who is Muslim but could govern the people fairly?

At what point do you draw the line? If someone goes against God's law do we just say its ok? I realize elections can be tricky and we may need to vote for the lesser of two evils that may compromise our values. But do we just roll over and not take in account their religious beliefs?

When is the church going to start standing up to this world and not saying everything is ok? I am just so tired of hearing how we need to compromise. I don’t get it.

Matthew 28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Wes

I don't think this is an issue of standing up to this world. The fact is that our leaders are more safely judged by their actions than what they say they believe. President Bush was brought up as an example. He calls himself an evangelical Christian, but has he been a good President, even from an "evangelical" viewpoint? I don't think anyone is asking us to compromise; they're just suggesting that you judge the person's actions, not what they say they believe.

Quote: "I don't think anyone is asking us to compromise; they're just suggesting that you judge the person's actions, not what they say they believe."

Exactly...as far as "going against God's law," that is too broad and too vague a statement to apply to a politician. We all "go against" God's law; that's why we need Christ. Anyone can say they are a Christian, or a Muslim, or they believe this, or that; what matters is how they execute their duties.

So you guys have no problem whether they are mormon, buhdist, hindu, muslim pick your flavor of ice cream, as long as they act in a way you think is right?

I wonder if you seperate your walk with Christ in your day to day business dealings. Do you compromise because the world doesn't understand why we live the way we do?

But that is how we should expect or president to be? Say one thing but act another?

Help me understand.

Leaving aside the question of whether Christians should always vote for Christians, etc., and just focusing on the religious litmas test -- I say, bring it on.

Why should we fear the same test being used on Christian candidates? Maybe the secular media will learn something.

Very few, if any, U.S. Presidents claimed not to be Christians. The whipping boy of the Religious Right, Bill Clinton, claimed to be Christian. So does Hillary.

Understand the political game: candidates for U.S. President, will, for the forseeable future, always claim to be Christian. Therefore, it is largely ceremonial and meaningless. I will therefore look to the candidate to be able to perform his or her duties in an upright, intelligent manner. Even that is a lot to ask of a politician.

It is naive to expect any politician to have arrived where they are without compromise. Man is depraved, so let's stop expecting perfection out of people. The Presidency, of almost all positions, is the highest peak of compromise in this country.

Wes, would you prefer a Christian President who subverted the Constitution to a Muslim or Buddhist president who was faithful to the Constitution?

"Secular media doesn't want religion, especially those who take it seriously and believe its true, n the public square because they think we're ignorant and uneducated. They think our viewpoint is illegitimate for public debate."

What is the evidence for this statement? None is presented. Is it possible to simply disagree, not because of the religion, but because of the politics? The media, in general, may be unfocused and cowardly but it isn't biased against religion in any systematic manner.

BTW, I will assume that anyone reading the comments on the two "Morman posts" will have to admit that there is some validity to the "Christianist" meme.

Alan,

What I want is a president who loves Jesus with all his heart and desires to obey God's word. Yeah I know its lofty goals but thats what I really want.

Is there a reason not to desire this?

Like others have stated here I get the point we are not perfect. Nor will any president be perfect. But why should I be willing to compromise and not state what I really want.

And no way do I want a muslim as a president. I will take the Christian. I know where they stand even if they screw up.

Wes

But like in my marriage to my wife the only way I can be a "good" husband is by focusing on Christ. Do I still make mistakes oh yeah. However, 9 years ago when I gave my life to Christ I became the husband my wife wanted.

Quote:
"What I want is a president who loves Jesus with all his heart and desires to obey God's word. Yeah I know its lofty goals but thats what I really want."

Wes, we would all love that, and I agree, it is not only a lofty goal but also a practically unattainable one. I say this because there is no way anyone can know or test if that is true.

Furthermore, a man with that integrity could never be elected. It may sound cynical, but it's part of the business of politics. You can't make it that far, holding to your guns. You've got to please people.

Remember back in 1988 or '92, when Pat Robertson ran for President? He was asked whether Jews who did not accept Jesus would go to heaven or hell. He fudged an answer, but could not say, "Yes, they will go to hell" because there goes his Jewish vote. You cannot make it to that level and expect to tell the truth in all matters, or at the very least express something you personally believe that will offend a lot of people.

Do you see what I mean?

"What I want is a president who loves Jesus with all his heart and desires to obey God's word. Yeah I know its lofty goals but thats what I really want."

Wes, you have just described James I and Charles V; I am interested in how you reconcile the principles of our Constitution (specifically Article VI) with your desires. You also failed to answer my question: Would you prefer a Muslim or Buddhist you held to his oath of office to a Christian who violated it?

"And no way do I want a muslim (sic) as a president. I will take the Christian. I know where they stand even if they screw up."

You would prefer your privacy to be invaded, be indefinitely detained without redress and be tortured by a Christian rather then live under the Presidency of a law abiding Buddhist or Muslim who did none of these things?

Also, I'm sure there are many millions of Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and atheist wives who are quite happy with their husbands.

BTW, although the post was couched in general terms, Hugh's book looks like it's going to be a partisan opening shot in the campaign for the Republican nomination in 2008. Given the recent record of conservative Christians in helping pick a Presidential candidate, do you really think it wise to go down that road again? Have you all learned any lessons from your previous adventure? Is it wise to tie ones ministry to such a venture?

I liked the quote by Luther. I also thought it fitting to include another section on his comments about government, "The reasonable question has been put whether it is better to have a good but imprudent ruler or a prudent but personally bad one. Moses here certainly calls for both: a good and a prudent ruler."
Luther then goes on to say if both are not available then prudence is prized over a good person who is not prudent.
http://tuppersaussy.com/html/writings/articles/dialvol1%20no2.html

I'm all for Mitt Romney. And I agree with Hugh Hewitt about seperation of the two questions - is he fit for office, and is he doctrinally sound.

People tell me about polygamy, and the mountain meadows massacre, and I point out that Mitt Romney has been married to the same wife for decades, and underwent opposition research when he ran for senate against Ted Kennedy and came out clean as a whistle.

People may bring up Mormon's special underwear (which means they commit to keep the commandments) - and I say so what. He can wear any kind of underwear he wants to as long as he can figure out brilliant ways not to raise my taxes, and still provide government services that add value to me as a citizen.

People point out that he isn't a 'real christian' (whatever that means) and I ask - compared to who? Rudy Giuliani? John McCain?

The comments to this entry are closed.