Skip to main content

The Republicans Gotcha Again!

    We hear it every primary season.  "I would never vote for [fill in the blank]!"  As the candidates begin to be weeded out, some resolve is lost, but there still remains quite a few resisting the apparent candidate.  "Well, I don't know if I can vote for [fill in the blank]..."  Come convention time, the resolve is lost and binary thought creeps in.  "I really don't like [fill in the blank], but we just can't let [fill in the blank] win!"  This election cycle has done nothing to demonstrate a change in this binary thought process.

    Republicans have gotcha again!  The moment you begin to think in Blue vs. Red, GOP vs. Dem, or Elephant vs. Donkey terms, you've already lost.  They already have you.  You actually think there is a difference.  You actually believe that the Republican establishment is significantly better than the Democratic establishment.  If you think that the Republican party is offering a candidate that is morally, socially, and/or economically superior to Hillary Clinton, you're caught on the same train to disappointment you've ridden every four years for the countless decades.  If you think that voting for Donald Trump will change this country in a positive way, you're dreaming.

    "But a no-vote/vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary!"  No, no it's not, and here's four reasons why.

1) For every person like me, there's a Bernie supporter who is staying home.  The disillusioned are abounding on every side (even the Libertarians are experiencing fallout).  I believe this election will have one of the lowest turnouts (percentage-wise) in history, particularly as concerns those voting for Trump and Hillary.  I live in a pretty conservative district anyway, so my lack of a vote won't practically affect Donald Trump's chance of winning.

2) I'd just as soon vote for Hillary as Trump, so my not voting for either could just as easily be construed as a vote for Trump.  You're welcome.

3) In this country we govern through representatives.  That means that I am responsible in some way for what my vote produces.  Not voting for a candidate is a statement before my fellow Americans that I do not trust his/her policies and/or character enough to take responsibility for the decisions that that candidate makes.  If you voted for Obama, you are responsible for what he has done to our country.  If you voted for Mitt Romney and he won, you would have been responsible for his mess, too.

4) My ultimate responsibility is to obey God, and I believe that I am responsible before Him for the effects of my voting.  We have a God-given freedom of representative government in this country.  I believe electing immoral leaders, knowingly or negligently, is sinful.  As the Apostles said, "We most obey God rather than men."  That seems pretty clear-cut.  I will not bow down to the two-party system that is so entrenched in our land.  I will not violate my conscience by casting a vote for an immoral man.  I will not be manipulated by the ruling elite.  I will not be a sheep.  I will choose leaders according to the standards of both common sense and the revelation of God.  I will not simply take the best that the world has to offer.  My refusal to vote is far from vain.  It is an act before God and man that proclaims my objections to the political system in our country and the politicians that have produced/are produced by it.

    As you can see, I don't follow the "lesser of two evils" line of reasoning.  That kind of thinking promotes the steady erosion of our principles.  This election it is particularly easy to abstain because neither candidate is significantly less evil.  You're just deciding whether or not you like evil in pants or in a pantsuit.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary