I’ve been a little perplexed by a sentiment I’ve seen rolling around the intarwebs recently… “Vote your conscience, not your religion.”
I wholeheartedly agree with the statement “Vote your conscience.” That is how we are to vote. Not by party lines, not according to media hype, not according to a resigned sense of “if ya can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”, not according to what anyone else tells you to do, but according to your conscience.
If your religion does not affect your conscience, then you have an impotent religion and may I suggest that you are wasting your time on your religion.
Of course I know that what is meant by “vote your conscience, not your religion” is that you shouldn’t simply vote according to how your church tells you to. I agree here (partially), see above. However, there are worse ways of determining how to vote, and I might submit that if you don’t let your church affect how you vote at least slightly, then you are in fact going to vote the way someone else tells you. (I really need to get around to writing that post on my feelings on free will… someday…). You might also be wasting your time in that church.
I also believe that a church should not mandate a particular voting direction. HOWEVER, a church SHOULD educate itself (i.e., the people in the church should eductate themselves) on what scripture has to say about various issues, let that sink into your “conscience”, and then vote accordingly.
Sad fact is, most churches don’t take the time to teach this thoroughly and so simply state one candidate is God’s man, and the other is obviously the anti-christ.
Interestingly, I’m not hearing that (yet) in this election. Probably because most church leaders are rather baffled by the (lack of) good options.
I also find it interesting that the most likely candidate for the anti-christ I’ve seen in awhile is running and no one is saying anything (oh, snap.)
August 27, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Wow. I am not very good at English. I need to proofread and revise before I post…
August 27, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Luke and I really liked this post! Thanks for putting the thought out there to ponder. We both agree 100%…
August 27, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Yeah one of the problems of saying vote your conscience is that more and more people are violating and searing their consciences and so are not able to discern that there is such a thing as objective moral reality.
The other problem is that the ideals of unconditional acceptance and love are being accepted by religious and secular society alike while atheistic influence is denouncing objective morality (which can’t exist if there is no God) and so are calling into question responsibility to follow said morality.
And so the root problem, they say, is that religious people hold to an inflexible ethic that many don’t quite see. So my political position is to give them Jesus in the hope that it will open up their eyes. Its a crazy business.
August 27, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Are you suggesting that this might be the Obamanation of Desolation (let the reader understand)
August 27, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Obama Nation of Desolation?
I think any guess at the anti-christ will leave one looking foolish. I might have also been referring to McCain. But probably not.
Keep in mind, I used to have Bono pretty high up on my list too, and I love Bono.
Anyone who carries a revolutionary message and is wildly popular needs to be scrutinized very very very closely.
August 27, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Obama and McCain both have sever shortcomings (starting with McCain being about a hair away from dementia), but referring to either as the “anti-Christ” is so freaking absurd I can’t fathom why someone would say it in kind of remotely serious tone…
August 28, 2008 at 9:57 am
@Dave – isn’t that exactly what everyone would need to be thinking in order for the anti-Christ do his thing? I mean, the anti-Christ would need to deceive even smart people like you that he really isn’t the anti-Christ when really, he is (assuming the anti-Christ is a “he”).
Of course, this is no evidence that Obama or McCain may or may not be the anti-Christ. I’m just making the case that by definition, you won’t overtly recognize the anti-Christ when / if he / she appears. And I think this is Matt’s point.
August 31, 2008 at 7:19 am
There was quite a flap about Obaman being the antiChrist a few weeks ago but it seems to have died down a bit. Just google it and you’ll see what I mean!