Skip to main content

Why I am not Voting for Jo Jorgensen

My last two posts were explanations of why I am not voting for Trump and Biden.  My Libertarian friends most likely agreed whole-heartedly with my criticism of both major candidates, but they may be wondering why I won't be voting for a third-party candidate, like Jo Jorgensen.  

Well, this post is going to be the shortest of them all.  Why am I not voting for Jo Jorgensen?  Why can't I vote for Jo Jorgensen?


That's it.  That's the only reason.

Many of my fellow Christian with Libertarian leanings can probably identify with me here.  Abortion is the reason so many people continue to vote for Republican candidates instead of the Libertarian alternatives.

Libertarians run on a platform of unabated freedom.  You want to do drugs?  That's your right.  You want to be a racist business owner who doesn't hire certain kinds of people?  That's you're prerogative.  You want to own nuclear weapons?  By George, this is America!  Go ahead and get that nuke!  

So far, so good.  I agree that the government should not be involved with any of these issues.  My preference would be a society where God's Word is consciously used as the basis for our laws, but, short of that, a Libertarian society seems like the next best option.  Freedom means having the right to be a jerk and do stupid things.  Freedom means having the right to live in a way that other people don't understand or like.  Freedom means it's not the government's job to protect me from myself.

But, abortion is not like those other issues.  Abortion is not a matter of personal preference.  Abortion is not a victimless crime. Abortion has a victim, and, therefore, demands government involvement.  Abortion is the willful taking of another person's life, and protecting life is one of the few responsibilities the government actually has.

To her credit, Jo Jorgensen wants to end government funding for abortion, but that's not good enough.  Civil governments are called, both by God and by social contract with their constituents, to protect the innocent.  Who is more innocent (legally speaking) than the unborn?  Who needs protection more than the unborn child in the womb?

This is why government support, even funding, for abortion is such a travesty.  Instead of protecting the innocent, helpless members of our society, our government calls infanticide a human right.  Woe unto those who call evil good.

So, no, I can't vote for a candidate who refuses to protect the innocent members of our society.  This is a fundamental part of what it means to be a leader, particularly in the civil realm.  I know I'm not alone here--the Libertarian party will never gain the traction necessary to field a viable candidate until they draw a hard line on abortion. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more