Yes, but what's the alternative? NOT an argument for the lesser of two evils...

October 18, 2016

 

I wish I had a nickel for everyone that I have heard say "I don't know who I am going to vote for this year," "I'm just not going to vote," or, "I'm not going to vote on principle."

Before you turn me off, I will admit, I said it too.  In full disclosure, I financially supported another candidate during the primaries and voted for yet a different candidate in the California primary - my first choice was already out.  However, I want to point out the full gravity of this situation.  Before you stop reading and move on to the next most interesting post in your news feed, I ask that you read forward with a prayerful perspective and an open heart.

 

I have heard it said more than a few times, "We don't have to choose between the lesser of two evils."  This is true.  We don't.  However, we must choose the platform and issues that do have the most viability and promise for maintaining an environment conducive to religious liberty for the sake of the Gospel.

Contending for the faith means that we understand how public policy is shaped and how public policy impacts our society.

Today I was reading an article about just how awful is Donald Trump's character.  I thought, "Yes, but what's the alternative?"  This is not to cower to the lesser of two evils, but to understand that contending for the faith is what is most important.  Contending for the faith means that we understand how public policy is shaped and how public policy impacts our society.  Policy positions are worth your vote and policy positions are not the lesser of two evils.

 

So, as believers, what are we to do?  Are we to vote for a candidate who has less than perfect morals?  What about a candidate that said horribly negative things towards women, who perhaps has done horrible things to women without their consent?  What about voting for a candidate who has spent most of her public life scheming to deceive the voters she serves for personal gain? What if she is a chronic liar who lacks the moral integrity to be the commander-in-chief?

 

Let's take a very brief look at our options.  There are five candidates for whom you can vote come November. 

         

Jill Stein (G),

Gary Johnson (L),

Evan McMullen (I),

Hillary Clinton (D),

and Donald Trump (R). 

 

Please understand, there are no other options.  There is not a 6th candidate yet to be identified and, contrary to popular opinion, you cannot simply write in just anyone you would like to have a shot at the Oval Office.  So my presupposition is that if you are wondering for whom you will vote for in November, you are referring to these choices and only these choices.  If not, you should not vote because you are out of touch with what is going on and perhaps a detriment to the outcome of the election anyway. 

 

If you noticed, there are only 2 candidates participating in the debates.  This is because the Commission on Presidential Debates has a standard that you must be a viable candidate to participate.  In other words, the 3rd party and independent candidates are not going to win and everyone knows it.

 

Now to the issues and policy positions, of which there are MANY to consider and MANY that should convince you to vote if you sincerely look at the biblical position on those issues. However, out of all of them and including the right-to-life, I implore you, my brother or sister in Christ, to consider even just one along with its implications for all other issues and more.

 

Several days ago I was perusing my RSS feeds and come across an article that has been nagging at me ever since.  I thought many times that I should share this but thought, "Eh. Let people figure it out on their own, after all, what can I do."  But after putting it off, I have felt more and more guilty for not sharing this perspective.  Especially since now we know that the Clinton campaign has spoken so negatively about faith calling those of faith "backwards thinkers," among other things.  The HRC campaign has even discussed an attempt to touch off a revolt within the Catholic church to change the views of the church on issues like the right-to-life.  These emails affirms that HRC will be a continuation of the Obama administration in regard to religious liberty.

 

The article to which I am referring is titled, "Team Obama launches a shocking broadside against religious faith," written by Rabbi Abraham Cooper and published September 23, 2016 by FoxNews.com.  This article records a very little known reality of what will become the status quo of religious liberty under another Clinton presidency.  She has said that she will be Barack Obama's 3rd term and has made her agenda of progressivism no secret.  So it's safe to say that she will appoint a cabinet, department heads, and judges along the lines of Obama, or even more progressive.  

 

The current chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is Martin Castro, an Obama appointee.  On September 7th, Castro took it upon himself to decide on behalf of the entire nation that the Constitution is no longer adequate for our modern progressive culture.  This is not sensationalism.  In a letter he penned to the president, vice president, and speaker of the house, Castro stated that "Religious exemptions to the protections of civil rights based upon the classifications such as race, color, national origin, sex, and gender identity, when they are permissible, significantly infringe upon these civil rights."  In other words, Martin Castro, the chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has just answered the question all Christians have been asking lately about the state of religious freedom in the United States.  Religious liberty is dangerous and should be limited.  Obviously, there is no gray area in scripture regarding the sanctity of ALL life; all sizes, colors, and shapes, born, or unborn are precious in the sight of God.  This is not a race or body type issue.  However, Martin Castro believes that your faith must be censored in this culture to allow for the progressive agenda.

 

Religious discrimination is currently practiced in our culture, Sweet Cakes my Melissa officially announced their closure a few weeks ago. Now religious discrimination has been proposed as rule-of-law.

 

Let's look at the logical end of this position.  If you believe the biblical position on so many social issues, issues like same sex marriage, gender identity, and the right-to-life, then under a Clinton administration the government's position on these issues would supersede your right to believe the Word of God. What does this look like in practice?  It looks like the government mandating that Christian ministers must perform marriage ceremonies even if it violates their beliefs or face charges.  It looks like your tax dollars will continue to be used to fund abortions that end the lives of so many unborn babies regardless of your faith-based conviction. It looks like the government mandating that even private Christian schools fall under the state mandated curriculum that contradicts the teachings of scripture. Ultimately, it looks like the Word of God, removed from our schools since 1962, will now be removed from your hands because others are in need of protection from it. You must obey the government, or pay the price.  For Sweet Cakes the price was their livelihood and a measly $135,000.

 

Christians have not yet seen persecution in the United States.  If HRC is elected, we "domesticated Christians" may begin to realize the meaning of the term.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

RECENT POSTS

RSS Feed

January 19, 2013

Please reload

CATEGORIES

Please reload

ARCHIVE POSTS

Please reload

  • Grey Instagram Icon

CONTACT:

© 2016