Thursday, April 26, 2012

Throwing My Vote Away



This article is less written to support or denounce a certain political candidate and more written to hopefully cause all of my conservative Christian friends to step back and think about why they are making the decisions that they are making.  I'm going to start with my conclusion and then work backwards.

Assuming that he is indeed nominated, I have no intention of voting for Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election.

There, I've said it.

Now for the response: "A vote third-party is a vote for Obama!"

Actually, no it isn't.

It's a vote for third-party.  It's one more voice saying "not only am I not OK with the socialistic agenda of the Democratic party- I'm also not OK with the socialistic agenda of the Republican party."

But that's all irrelevant.  Irrelevant.  The real issue here is not whether my vote for the, say, Constitution Party candidate is going to make it that much easier for Obama to win.  The real issue is whether it's my job to worry about that in the first place.

The real issue is whether I am doing my duty before God when I give my vote to a man that God's Word denounces as unqualified.  

I'm so tired of hearing conservative people that I really respect towing the Republican party line- not just because I firmly believe that oftentimes the Republican party is thoroughly wrong, but ultimately because it's a decision made on the basis of projected results instead of Biblical principle.

This is pragmatism.  As far as I can see from Scripture, pragmatism is only allowed within the purview of Scriptural Principle.  Once we have narrowed down our choices to those that are Biblically acceptable, then, and only then, may we perhaps apply other methods of reasoning.

But that is not the thought process of conservatives, even conservative Christians, today.  Instead of making decisions first from principle and then from practicality, we look at what we think will happen given a certain set of circumstances and then try to fix the circumstances so that something better happens.  We look at the worst possible outcome and then try to conjure up a solution that will prevent that terrible thing from happening- whatever the cost, whatever the compromise.  So long as we prevent the greater evil, we're fine with advancing the cause of a lesser evil.

How far must it go before we realize that this is an absurd basis for any kind of serious decision-making?  We will elect Romney the Republican to prevent the election of Obama the Democrat- would we just as readily elect Hitler the Republican to prevent the election of Stalin the Democrat?  Yes, the candidates are very different- but the reasoning is exactly the same.

Does God's Word give us the freedom to live life based on the hypotheticals of our frightened imagination?  Is this the pattern that we see in Scripture?  What is our first rule of conduct?

"Trust in The LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding.  In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths."

In our understanding it may be best to vote for the electable candidate in hopes that we don't get another four years of the tyrannical advances that have characterized the last four years of the American federal government.  We may feel the need to do something- like Uzzah, who reached out to catch The Ark of the Covenant as it fell to the ground- only to, like Uzzah, find ourselves living with the consequences of disobedience to The Word of God.

Please, please reconsider your assumptions before you jump on the bandwagon of conservatism.  If you are a Christian, your first duty is to God, not to any party- nor even, primarily, to your country.  We must walk in obedience to our King.

The thing is, this will be the best thing possible for our country.  How blessed is the nation whose God is The LORD!  The Church of America has forsaken the rich birthright passed down from her forefathers.  We have given up our place as the pillar and support of Truth, left the driver's seat, turned the reigns over to the world, and abandoned the true relevance that is to be found in simple obedience to The Word of God.

So I will not vote for Mr. Romney because I believe that he is not a Biblically qualified candidate.

It is true that there will never be a perfect candidate.  Some might make a straw man out of this argument and say "Well in that case, you should write in your dad, or your pastor, or someone that you agree with on just about everything."  This is ignoring the principle by abusing the practice.  I believe that there is room for pragmatism- as a secondary consideration.  Within the purview of Biblically qualified candidates, we may then look at which one seems like the best choice.  But we must seek God first.

A parallel example may be cited in Jack Bauer, the hero of the TV show "24", who frequently commits immoral acts because in his estimation they will prevent acts that are more immoral.  Jack frequently commits crimes to prevent crimes- he kills in the name of saving lives- he chooses what he sees as the lesser of two evils.


Voting for Mr. Romney is far removed from the act of murder, but really, isn't 24 just the same reasoning grown up?

How far must it go before we realize that when we act on perception and not on principle we are building on foundations of sand?

If we can all agree that our voting decisions must be made first on the basis of God's Word, before we give room for any other consideration, then I'm OK with not always checking the same boxes on the ballot sheet.  Let us start with not worrying about tomorrow- with not catching the Ark- with leaving the results to God, trusting history to Providence, and following the one certain rule of faith and obedience that He has left to us, His perfect Word.

It is for God to worry about the consequences.  It is for us to simply obey.

P.S.

If the nation is a car and the road that we are on leads to a drop into oblivion, and if the president is the driver, then I might rather have another term of Obama than a term under a big-government Republican.

While Mr. Obama might drive us faster towards our demise, a big-government Republican will not change direction.

He may just slow the car down enough for the passengers to go back to sleep.

62 comments:

Gods Country Boy said...

Ah, somebody who at last voiced, in almost identical terms, my opinion. :D
Totally agree. Worrying about "throwing the vote away" is just pragmatics - My duty is to vote for whom I think best, no matter the outcome.
If Obama gets elected, or Romney for that matter, it won't be because I voted for them.

Grace Pennington said...

THIS.

I can't tell you how often I've had this conversation with family members and friends. I remember one conversation with my grandfather:

Grandpa: "We wouldn't mind voting for the Constitution party candidate, but that would just have been throwing our vote away."

Me: "So you voted for McCain so that Obama wouldn't win?"

Grandpa: "Yes, exactly."

Me: "How did that work out for you?"

Grandpa: *silence*

The results are in God's hands. :D

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Heehee, ouch. Good comeback, Grace. :-D

Glad y'all agree!

Aubrey Hansen said...

Very good thoughts to contemplate. This is something I am pondering because, at the moment, I am not liking Romney...

ACR said...

Two very important biblical principles regarding Christian political action:

1. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; we all want wise rulers for our nation, not foolish ones; why then, would anyone who professes to believe the word of God vote for a political candidate who does not fear God? If a man does not know the "ABC's" of wisdom, it is not likely he will know the rest of it.

2. When faced with adversity, the rule of our conduct is never "whichever course of action may secure us a better providence;" that is nothing but the very heart of cowardice. Rather, the rule of our conduct must always be "to the law and to the testimony" of God's word, with no regard for the consequences.

Stand Fast,

Andrew R.

Racheal said...

Gabriel,

While I repect you a great deal, I think that you are dangerously wrong in this case.

I'm sending you a paper Daddy has written addressing this subject. It is much to long to post as a comment or I would. Please give it a fair reading.

Racheal

Dale said...

Well said, Gabriel. I cannot vote for Romney because he is a polytheist cult member and therefore not qualified. I will not vote for Romney because he is a socialist. Anyone who calls himself a "Christian Conservative" and votes for Romney is the person throwing their vote away.

Jennifer said...

You can say all you want that it's a vote for 3rd party, Gabriel, but it's not true. I saw people do this last time in protest of having a female VP, and now we have a bankrupting, partial birth supporting, Muslim-enabling, country splitting, racist fascist in charge. You want to do that again? At least you'll feel good that you didn't vote for Romney.

amy said...

Since I just reached voting age this is something I have been thinking about, and I think we've got the same views on this one :-)

Personally, either, I want to vote for one who deserves my vote or I don't want to vote at all.

Choosing "the lesser of two evils" doesn't work, because God never gives us the option to choose evil.

Racheal--would you be willing to send me the paper your dad wrote, as well? I'd be interested to read it. (amy.faraboverubies@gmail.com)

ACR said...

America is our country; it is not our God. We must not save America at all costs; we must honor God at all costs. And we must resolve as noble men and women that, if America goes down, the honor of our names as loyal followers of Jesus Christ will not go down with it.

The whole duty of man, according to Ecclesiastes 12:13, is to fear God and keep his commandments. If this be the whole duty of man, we have no other duty, and no other duty can be rightfully impressed upon us which is not encompassed in that.

Before we go selling out on our principles and running to "polytheistic cult members and socialists," as my friend Mr. Ford put it, could I remind my friends that God, not Romney, is our deliverer? And were not the Israelites judged for allying themselves with the ungodly Egyptians? Can we then ally with men such as Romney?

Could one of these pragmatists please explain to me how this is consistent with the fear of God, or how the commands of God require such action of us? Sorry, it sounds a lot more like the fear of man to me.

I know of no commandment in the Word of God even inferring in the least that it is a good idea for Christians to vote for non-God-fearing candidates. And I do not know how anyone could prove that the fear of God should induce us to vote for non-God-fearing candidates. As these two things, the fear of God and the keeping of his commands encompass the whole duty of man, no one has any right to assert that we ought to support Romney, because "ought" presupposes duty.

The question is not about results. In the words of Stonewall Jackson, Duties are ours, events are God's. As soldiers of the cross, our pragmatic perceptions do not determine our duty. Our duty is given to us by an all-wise Captain. He is the sovereign over human events, and we are not. We must have faith that, regardless of the outcome of this immediate election, all things will work together for those who love God, who keep his commandments.

We must resolve as Christian men and women that no foreboding evil will ever turn us a whit from obedience to the scripture. We have no right to vote for a man who does not fear God; A vote for Romney is a surrender of much ground. True, if Obama won we might lose more ground. But God's ground is not ours to sacrifice. He is God, and he doesn't need our help in providentially controlling human events. What He requires of us is to fear Him and keep his commandments.

Stand Fast!

Andrew Romanowitz

P.S.

Jennifer, I'm not going to debate with you about Sarah Palin. We've already had that discussion. What I will say is this: Even if Sarah Palin was a qualified candidate, John McCain was certainly not, so the point is moot.

Jennifer said...

Thank goodness, Andrew, I think there's nothing to debate. But John McCain was certainly more qualified.

Moriah R. Hudelson said...

Speechless! You have backbone my dear! :xox

I completely agree with you!

~ Moriah R. Hudelson

Daniel Romanowitz said...

Amen, Gabriel!

There are some remarkable inconsistencies in the "lesser of two evils" mentality.

First, it is claimed that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for the "greater evil" candidate. But what if Obama got in office last election because so many people voted "lesser-evil" instead of principled third-party(!) That can work both ways. :D

Next, if we could indeed figure out who everyone else is going to vote for, there would be no point in voting (according to the pragmatic mentality), unless our vote would make or break a tie(!) Even then, this would mean that nobody else can operate from the same pragmatic mentality. (If everyone were to decide his vote on the basis of everyone else's vote, nobody would vote!)

On the other hand, since we can't absolutely figure out how everyone will vote, we have no actual guarantee that someone is "more likely" to win than someone else.

This pragmatism is become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where its propositions are realized only when they are believed/practiced.

Additionally, how "bad" does a "lesser evil" candidate have to be before he is "off the table?" If a lesser evil candidate could be bad enough to a point that we wouldn't vote for him, would we not then be judging by an autonomous definition of evil rather than by God's standards for public officials? (See Prov. 16:12, Ex 18:21, Deut 1:9-18)

It's also a mistake to think that we simply elect the right president and then all our political problems could go away. If this were possible, we would have an absolute monarchy instead of a republic.

Simply removing Obama from office won't remove the increase of socialism. The only thing that will prevent our nation from going full-bore socialist is the embracing of the full Gospel of Jesus Christ--all of His commands and plans. (Matthew 28:19) Freedom cannot be expected to last over long in an apostate society.

If anything, one who votes for a "lesser evil" candidate is the one who votes to continue socialism or the like. Even if it's not as aggressive, slow socialism is still evil in God's sight, and it will still continue to corrupt. *We must remember it was not the immediate election of hard-core socialists such as Obama that primarily resulted in the devolution of our government to its current monstrous state, but rather the election of progressively more evil "lesser evil" candidates.* Let this be a warning to any who would espouse such a voting policy.

If Obama (or Romney) gets into office, it will not be because anybody voted for a Godly 3rd party. It will be because the majority of Americans have voted him in, for whatever reason. Ultimately, it will be because God set him in that position. *The Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses.* (Daniel 4:17, 25, 32.) "God is the Judge: He puts down one, and exalts another." Psalm 75:7 *God is the ultimate one who removes rulers and sets up rulers.* (Daniel 2:21)

Let us not do evil that good may come. We have been given the tremendous blessing of being able to select candidates for office. But we shouldn't discard our fealty to God in order to be able to continue living in a free society; fealty to God is the only generator of truly free societies. Our privilege to be servants of God is much more precious than our privilege to vote or our other freedoms (not that those other things aren't important, but they are secondary, being fruits rather than the root.)

Corey P. said...

Great post, Gabriel. Have you read Doug Wilson's thoughts on voting for Romney? Good stuff.

http://www.dougwils.com/Politics/atop-a-massachusetts-barn.html

Corey P. said...

@Grace: Nice. :D

Savannah said...

Andrew and Daniel (in particular),

The arguments that you all are using against pragmatists are points on which there is no argument or question on the part of "pragmatists" like some of us whose consciences are bound to vote against the ruling socialists by voting for the second party in this nation's two-party system.

Personally, I do not either use or agree with the statement that voting for Romney is the "lesser of two evils". Rather, it is a delaying tactic--an attempt to use peaceful means to slow down the socialist revolution that is ongoing...is that wrong in your opinion? Please show me from Scripture where this transgresses the law of the Holy God.

A passing thought: I am not going to vote for the Republican candidate so that Obama will not win--I will vote for the Republican candidate because this nation is essentially a two-party system and I believe that by not voting for the party that has the greatest potential to overthrow the current radical rulers, I will be accessory to breaking the law of God and furthering a tyrannous revolution/dictatorship. Romeny is socialist, also--who will say he is not?--but he is the candidate that the media chose for the second party.

If there were no godly Christian statesmen, do you propose that we should refrain from exercising our citizenship, if it did not violate the law of our Sovereign? But, then, you believe that it is sin to cast a vote for someone who is not a believer, essentially, it seems....

For the Kingdom!
Savannah

amy said...

*subscribing*

Flame of Jah said...

Thank you sir for posting this. I don't think I am voting for anyone this election. Romney and O are one and the same. And in good conscience I cannot vote for them. (in my state they do not allow third party candidates on the ballot.)

Rebekah said...

A well written post, Gabriel. I honestly am not entirely sure where I stand on this one, but your post was well done nonetheless. Certainly it gives voice to part of the arguments going on in my head. :p I'm still praying and thinking about whether I'll vote this year or not.

Same for your post about yoga, which I somehow missed. (It didn't show up on my Google Reader for some reason.) That post I think I can say I agree with. I think I would have to pray before I actually did yoga, though. It's not a direction I'm feeling led in right now, at any rate. :D

Glad your posting again! There was a stretch of silence for awhile. :)

To the KING be all the glory!
Rebekah

Racheal said...

Amy,
I will to send Daddy's paper to you.

Racheal

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Andrew- "America is our country; it is not our God. We must not save America at all costs; we must honor God at all costs. And we must resolve as noble men and women that, if America goes down, the honor of our names as loyal followers of Jesus Christ will not go down with it."

YES. YES YES. YES YES YES.

Excellently put, brother.

"This pragmatism is become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where its propositions are realized only when they are believed/practiced."

Daniel, also a stellar point.

Between your comments I think a better argument was made than I made in my post.

"Personally, I do not either use or agree with the statement that voting for Romney is the "lesser of two evils". Rather, it is a delaying tactic--an attempt to use peaceful means to slow down the socialist revolution that is ongoing...is that wrong in your opinion? Please show me from Scripture where this transgresses the law of the Holy God."

Hey Savannah! If I may respond to your question, I believe that it transgresses the law of the Holy God by making our voting decisions based on our ultimately humanistic and autonomous reasonings, rather than on the basis of His Word.

Everyone else- Hi, Welcome, and Thanks for stopping by! :-D

Savannah said...

Hi Gabriel!

I agree most definitely with your statement.

Perhaps I simply do not have enough political theory to understand all the ins and outs of the interpretations of Scripture regarding casting votes at the American ballot box. So can somebody please help me by telling me where the Scriptures are violated by using the peacful means we have at our dispoal? I am afraid that I haven't yet been completely able to understand the foundations of your argument from Scripture for voting only for a godly person.

I can see how what I say might look like expediency--but, at the same time, I can see how what you say can look like pietism...so it would help me a lot if somebody could explain the Scriptural basis for your arguments....

Thank you!

For the Kingdom!
Savannah

Gabriel Hudelson said...

OK, the basic rationale behind my arguments is this.

We must seek to obey and glorify God in all that we do. (Pr. 3:5+6, 1 Cor. 10:31)

That's it. That's the foundation.

So when we come to look at who we should vote for, the question that we should be asking is not "Who is the best candidate whom we think might be able to win." Rather, we must ask "Who would God want me to vote for?"

And how would we answer a question like that? By looking into Scripture and examining what His Word has to say about men who are fit to lead- like in 1 Tim. 3.

Once we start with looking at God's Word to determine who we would even consider giving our vote to, we can then consider how much room there is for imperfection. Ron Paul, for example, has a lot- a lot of stuff that I really like, but he gets it very, very wrong on a few issues. Is that enough to make him Biblically unqualified? I'm not sure yet.

But the real issue is how we reach the conclusions that we do. I'm fine with us not voting for the same person.

I'm even OK with you voting for Romney- if, and only if your rationale for doing so is based on The Word of God and not statistics, fear, projections of the future, or anything else.

(By the way, I use "you" there for a figurative person, not as an attack on you specifically, Savannah. :-)

Kelsianne said...

Great post. Very well put.

Savannah said...

Thank you Gabriel. Somehow, when I look at the qualifications for the elders/overseers and deacons in context, I just can't see that it necessarily has to do with state rulers--especially in a non-Christian society such as that in which Paul wrote. This seems to be a hinge, though the diverging lines of argument are not quite clear enough to me for me to describe what I see in a way that can be understood.... (Though I want to say, just so that my meaning is clear, that our duty to God undoubtedly trumps any duty to the state.)

I agree with Andrew that we want wise rulers--but we all know we can't have them right now because of the state of the nation and the way this nation's political system works...don't we? And I agree with you that fear of the future is no right basis for action.

Thank you much for answering!!!

For the Kingdom!
Savannah

Gabriel Hudelson said...

"I just can't see that it necessarily has to do with state rulers"- I totally agree in that it isn't written specifically for state rulers. I think it should still apply, though!

"we all know we can't have them right now because of the state of the nation and the way this nation's political system works...don't we?"

aHA. :-D

No, we don't. I believe that we can vote for much wiser rulers than either Obama or Romney.

Lisa said...

Howdy Gabe...thanks for posting this...to be perfectly honest, this is something I have really been wrestling with this past week, and still haven't reached a conclusion. But this post was definitely some great food for thought. I used to be completely anti third party (thinking it split the GOP vote and allowed the Democratic candidate into office) but now my thoughts are muddled and my head is spinning :P

But...question for you. In most of your post, you are arguing from an anti-pragmatism standpoint. But then, you say "I believe that there is room for pragmatism."

Where would you say the line is? Or how does one find that line? There (most likely) is not going to be a candidate that you agree with on every point, so eventually, pragmatism has to come into play to some degree and there will have to be some compromise. Buuuttt...where is it okay to compromise? I mean, do you go through issue by issue and see if the things you disagree on are big enough hills to die on? You know, pick your battles...

Thanks and God bless!
(a very confused) Lisa

Gabriel Hudelson said...

I would say this, Lisa:

Start with God's Word.

Is this candidate an option in light of The Word of God?

I think that eliminates most of 'em right off.

Once we've whittled down the candidates to only Biblical options, then maybe there's room for pragmatism.

I don't understand it all. I don't know exactly how it should play out. I do know that it starts with saying "what does God want us to do- how does He want me to vote?"

Maybe some will reach the conclusion that God wants them to vote for a big-government kinda-pro-murder flip-flopping socialistic candidate because he's less big-government pro-murder out-and-out socialistic than the current president.

Pardon my having fun with that one.

That's between them and God!

But let's start with His Word, not our fear.

Mr. Wilson brings up a great question in an article I'll link to below- where is the line that we are not willing to cross in our voting? But I'll let him bring that out for you.

Point is, once we start down the road of "lesser of two evils," we open ourselves up to humanism. We have left God's Word as the Standard, and what is there to prevent us from voting for Hitler to prevent the election of Stalin?

A couple of good articles:

http://www.dougwils.com/Politics/bloodshed-and-buggery.html

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=3434c554ecc52fad3f82ac168&id=f94a306918&e=0e47f21880

I'm still wrestling through it too, and I probably didn't clear much up for you, but please keep asking questions. May God use this to open up all of our eyes!

Lisa said...

"I don't understand it all. I don't know exactly how it should play out. I do know that it starts with saying "what does God want us to do- how does He want me to vote?"

This is basically where I've gotten to. Still trying to work through the applications of that question :)

Thanks for the articles...I'll check them out.

Lisa said...

Also, what do you believe makes a man Biblically unqualified to be president? You cited 1 Tim. 3, but all that is mentioned there is deacons and bishops...no political figures.

Obviously these are good traits to have in any leader, but they don't seem to be "requirements" for a political leader.

*note* I'm not trying to disprove anything...just playing the devil's advocate a little bit here.

Last question :D (you told me to keep asking them) Could you give me a quick rundown on the pros and cons of Ron Paul? Especially the cons?

Collin Wright said...

Hello Gabe!

I have to say I found your article quite fascinating. You make a lot of good points and reading the comments has only helped to solidify my choice not to vote for Mitt.

I find it funny that there seems to be a "let's herd around whoever" mentality emanating from everyone hell bent on getting rid of Obama. There is this frantic aura surrounding all these people, even the ones that don't like Romney! For example my grandpa asked me who I was voting for and when I told him I wasn't, he was beside himself with disbelief. Upon further questioning I found out he doesn't like Romney, but justifies voting for him by saying that no one is worse than Obama.

Going through Kings has been very sobering; this topic being at the forefront of my mind. I can't help but recall how God judged Israel EVERY time a pagan was leading them. Now I know we're not in the same situation as ancient Israel, but I think a God honoring man is ground zero when considering who to vote for.

Now, I want to get something off my chest real fast. Y'all are throwing the word pragmatism around like it's a dirty word. I'm sorry, but there are a myriad of reasons why voting for Romney is not only unbiblical, but not pragmatic. I think it is generally accepted that our country is in a measurably better condition when being governed by true Republican principles. We have also seen what happens when we elect moderate Republicans, Bush one and two being prime examples. I thought the reason we had Obama in the first place is because Republicans had abandoned the things that make them Republicans. I may be wrong, but voting for a progressive Republican seems like a a stupid choice for a country and the party that nominated him. Doesn't seem pragmatic to me.

Just some random thoughts,
Collin

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Collin, excellent thoughts. I'm really excited to hear you say these things, but you are also very right about the pragmatism bit.

We act like it's going to work...

Lisa- 1 Tim. 3. You're absolutely right- they're requirements for elders in The Church. I would still see them as wise considerations when looking at any other leader.

The cons of Ron Paul:

He waffles a bit on early-term abortions (he suggests that a woman who was raped should quickly get a shot of estrogen which would prevent any possibility of children).

He does not call homosexuality a sin.

He says that his faith doesn't influence his politics (which, giving him the benefit of the doubt, may simply mean that he as a politician acts according to the Constitution, but his first allegiance should still be to Christ).

Other than that, from what I've seen, it's pretty much pros all the way. He claims to be a Christian, he is (mostly) pro-life, he is consistently small-government, he works for sound money, mind-our-own-business foreign policy, etc.

Lisa said...

So then, where would you get your Biblical requirements for a political leader?

Wow, those are some cons. Especially the abortion one. Is there no one good? Where are the Godly men who should be running?!?!?

We need some of you young homeschooled guys to get a little older and start running!

Gabriel Hudelson said...

"So then, where would you get your Biblical requirements for a political leader?"

Same verse. I think the principles carry over quite well. Plus, there are plenty of other Biblical standards for character.

But here's an awesome and directly applicable one from Exodus 18:

"Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens."

Thus was Jethro's counsel to Moses.

Lisa said...

Perfect! Thanks :)

Racheal said...

"We need some of you young homeschooled guys to get a little older and start running!"

Amen, Lisa! :)

One other con on Ron Paul (a big one for me personally), he is awful on National Security. He practically promised that one of the first thing he'd do if he got into office would be to drastically reduce military/defense spending. (Which would include my Dad's retirement pention--he earned that; over 20 years in the Army.)

Gabriel Hudelson said...

"One other con on Ron Paul (a big one for me personally), he is awful on National Security."

Lots of people say this, but I strongly disagree. :-)

Anonymous said...

I'm going to vote for Obama. Your post isn't convincing enough to change my mind. Omaba is for the people, by the people and will never change. End of story.

Racheal said...

Er...so what else do you call defunding the military in the world we live in today? Just curious...

Confusedly, R

Anonymous said...

Before you all start to worry and aim your guns at me, I am Gabe's sister. I'm just teasing. "No harm, no foul!"
;)

Daniel Romanowitz said...

Here are some more verses expressing Biblical requirements for civil leaders:

Proverbs 16:12:
"It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, for a throne is established by righteousness."

Deuteronomy 17:14-20:
“When you come to the land which the Lord your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again.’
17 Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself. 18 Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites. 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes, 20 that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel."

Deuteronomy 1:17a:
"You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man’s presence, for the judgment is God’s."

Proverbs 31:4-5, 8-9:
"It is not for kings to drink wine,
Nor for princes intoxicating drink;
lest they drink and forget the law,
And pervert the justice of all the afflicted."
"Open your mouth for the speechless, in the cause of all who are appointed to die. Open your mouth, judge righteously,
and plead the cause of the poor and needy."

Isaiah 1:21-23:
"How the faithful city has become a harlot! It was full of justice;
righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers. 22 Your silver has become dross, your wine mixed with water. Your princes are rebellious,
and companions of thieves; everyone loves bribes,a nd follows after rewards. They do not defend the fatherless, nor does the cause of the widow come before them."

Let Christ reign,
Daniel

Gabriel Hudelson said...

"Er...so what else do you call defunding the military in the world we live in today? Just curious..."

Minding our own business.

:-D

Anon, good thing you clarified. *tactfully re-sheathes weapon*

amy said...

*sings*

♬Happy birthday to you...♬

Happy birthday, Gabe! Hope you had an awesome day!

{hey, our birthdays are exactly two months apart :-)}

Racheal said...

'"Er...so what else do you call defunding the military in the world we live in today? Just curious..."

Minding our own business.'

Uh-oh... :D

Are you aware that there are nations out there that HATE America and if our military is defunded, shrunk, and undermined (by our own government no less) some of these nations would gladly take advantage of that and attack us? Believe it or not--national defense is the governments job (check your Constitution!) I would (if I were running) to cut spending in other areas--like welfare and Government Education (Indoctrination)--both areas where the Feds should not have their fingers. Now, before I say something really dumb--good evening brother. :D

amy said...

Not sure if the military should be 'defunded' but we should definitely mind our own business a lot more.

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Heehee, thanks Amy!

Racheal: "Believe it or not--national defense is the governments job (check your Constitution!) I would (if I were running) to cut spending in other areas--like welfare and Government Education (Indoctrination)--both areas where the Feds should not have their fingers."

Totally agree that we should defend our nation, but I think we could cut a whole lot of military spending if we stopped defending other nations.

Heehee, I think I've found your hot button. ;-) I have no intention of offending!

David Terry said...

Good post Gabe,

7 And at that time Hanani the seer came to Asa king of Judah, and said to him: "Because you have relied on the king of Syria, and have not relied on the LORD your God, therefore the army of the king of Syria has escaped from your hand. 8 Were the Ethiopians and the Lubim not a huge army with very many chariots and horsemen? Yet, because you relied on the LORD, He delivered them into your hand. 9 For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him. In this you have done foolishly; therefore from now on you shall have wars." 2 Chron 16:7-9 (NKJV)


I really think if Jesus Christ was was on the ballot, millions of Christians would warn us not vote for him because...He cannot win!...your throwing away your vote!..The most important thing is to stop Obama! (Clinton,Al gore,Jimmy Carter etc....)

King Asa thought the most important thing was to stop king Baasha. It wasnt.

We need an attitude that fears the Lord so much that the thought of dishonering God and arousing His displeasure is more real to us, than fear of ANY man..."What! your voting for a conservative who doesnt fear God, who doesnt hate coveteousness!...Your throwing your vote away!..."

It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man. 9 It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in princes. Psalms 118:8-9

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matt 10:28

What does God say to do?

Choose wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men from among your tribes, and I will make them heads over you.' Deut 1:13

We have been so trained to color inside the lines. The world has an easy time presenting something as only a choice between A or B. (IE Hunger Games)The choices presented will never be something in line with Gods word. They never put that on the menu for us. Hopefully we Love the Lord enough that at some point we recognize…” this is the wrong menu.”

For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him. In this you have done foolishly; therefore from now on you shall have wars."
2 Chron 16:9

I know these thoughts are half baked... But they point in the direction that im trying to communicate....

To the King,and His Kingdom!

Racheal said...

"Heehee, I think I've found your hot button. ;-)"

*Laughs* You sure did! I typed that in a good mood though; so maybe I'm getting better at not getting my feathers ruffled so easy...

Paul Leavitt said...

That's a really good point! I especially like the last line. Very accurite.
I'm sitting at the Michigan County convention right this minute, and if there are seats available, I'll becom a delegate, and Ron Paul will be getting my vote!
~Paul

Corey P. said...

"Totally agree that we should defend our nation, but I think we could cut a whole lot of military spending if we stopped defending other nations."

Haha! Love it. :)

ACR said...

Savannah,

I want to address your questions, but in response, I want to be as articulate and clear as possible, and to answer matters like this articulately and accurately requires a lot of words. I hope that you are not averse to this, but it's more than I can say in the comment form here. If it's all right, I could, say, send an email to your father's email address (for propriety's sake) with my thoughts in full.

Stand Fast,

Andrew R.

Gabriel Hudelson said...

While I don't know if I would vote for him, I would love it if Ron Paul was nominated. :-D

Daniel, thanks for the excellent passages!

Mr. Terry: "I really think if Jesus Christ was was on the ballot, millions of Christians would warn us not vote for him because...He cannot win!"

YES. So true. Also, great point about the wrong menu. :-)

Savannah said...

Andrew,

I welcome your offer of many words to help explain this issue. However, I do not wish to put my family's email address out in the open like this (though I greatly appreciate your consideration for propriety!)--so perhaps you could go to my blog (sparksofreformation.wordpress.com) and send something via the contact form so I can send you an address or something....

I am looking forward to a fuller Biblical exposition of this so very practical and important problem. (By the way, do you know of any other rescources for study that wouldn't be totally life-consumingly-long?)

Thanks for taking time for this!

For the Kingdom!
Savannah

amy said...

"While I don't know if I would vote for him, I would love it if Ron Paul was nominated. :-D"

That kinda confuses me, Gabriel. If you would love for him to be nominated, why wouldn't you vote for him? If you don't think you could vote for him, why would you love for him to be nominated?

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Because I disagree with many of the things that he believes personally, but I love his policies and what they would do for the nation. He has a message that needs to get out there. :-)

ACR said...

Savannah,

Actually, you don't need to put your family's email address out here, and I wasn't thinking that you would have to. I was going to put mine out, I just wanted to get a positive response from you first. (Sorry, I should have been clearer...) Just send me an address at acrstandfast@att.net. That's my email address, and being a musician my address kind of has to be public, so I don't mind putting it up here.

I do know of other resources, and I'll send you those links at the front of the email.

Stand Fast,

Andrew Romanowitz

Anna said...

Great post and comments..they really are thought provoking!!

Anna said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Flame of Jah said...

Dear sir,

You mention that Dr. Paul waffles on abortion in few areas, do you have any links or other documentation? Also, have you heard of the Sanctity of Life Act? Dr. Paul has introduced it four times in Congress, this act would declare that; "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency"

God Bless,

Flame of Jah

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1096:

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Thanks for visiting! Here you go:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/02/04/piers-morgan-ron-paul-views-on-abortion.cnn

Flame of Jah said...

Thank you, for some reason or another, I can't get the web page you posted to fully load.

Gabriel Hudelson said...

Hmm... I'm sorry to hear that! It works for me...