CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

On Mitt Romney and America’s Future

May 13, 2012

It is pretty clear by now that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will get the nod as the Republican nominee to run against Barack Obama in November. As might be known, he is certainly not my main choice. Nor even my second. Nor third.

A number of Republican candidates whom I liked far better because they were much more conservative have all pulled out or fallen out of the race. Among them were Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum. (Libertarians like Ron Paul I do not regard as a conservative, so he was never on my list.)

Thus we have to deal with who we have, and that now almost certainly – barring some unforeseen event – will be Romney. The Republican National Convention will be held in Tampa, Florida on August 27. It is there he most likely will get the official green light to take on President Obama.

As you know, he served as Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. His time there was certainly a mixed bag. He tended to flip-flop on many key issues, including abortion and homosexual marriage. Of course now, to offer a contrast to Obama, he is talking much more conservatively on these sorts of issues.

Of course never mind the obvious fact that Obama has also flip-flopped on some of these things, especially marriage. But when he changes his mind, it is called “evolving” and is therefore OK. But to the leftist MSM, if Romney changes his mind, he is a flip-flopper.

But we can expect to see much more of this from here on in. The MSM will be seeking to smear Romney in every way possible, while refusing to lay a hand on Obama. Thus the media is already dredging up supposed incidents when Romney was just a schoolboy!

But back to the man and his policies. He certainly will have to make himself look very different from Obama. But the trouble is, in some areas, they have at times been more similar than different. Consider for example the Massachusetts health reform law which he brought in back in 2006.

It in many ways became the prototype for Obama’s monstrous and unhelpful reforms in this area. So he will have a very hard time indeed in critiquing Obamacare, given how much it drew upon his own health care reform. Not being a consistent or thorough conservative, his efforts to distinguish himself from the incumbent will be that much harder than if a real conservative were to get the nomination.

But no use crying over spilled milk, or failed candidates. The only really crucial thing at this point is getting rid of Obama. I have written numerous articles over the past few years showing how he is perhaps our most dangerous US president ever.

The list is long, but for conservatives and Christians he has been terrible on so many fronts, whether abortion, homosexuality, or the importance of marriage and family. He has been as keen to suck up to Islam as he has been willing to betray Christianity.

If he gets a second term I really do not see how America will be able to recover. In the first term he could only unleash part of his ultra-radical agenda. But if he wins a second there will be little stopping him from completing the destruction of the American nation.

Even just in terms of appointing more leftist, activist Supreme Court judges for their life terms it would be bad enough. But he likely will have destroyed the US economy well before the judicial activists destroy the moral, cultural and social fibre of the nation.

Thus while Mitt Romney is far from ideal, at this point there is something much more important: we must get rid of Obama. If he gets in a second term we are all toast. I would not wish to live through all the carnage he will inflict, not just on the US, but on the whole world, if he gets back in.

Far too many Christians who should have known better back in 2008 were duped and deceived big time by this guy. They fell for all the baloney that he was somehow the messiah who would solve all of America’s problems. Well he ain’t, and he hasn’t.

So hopefully American Christians will wake up this time and reject this man, and reject him decisively. But of course there is a problem here. Because Romney is a Mormon, which historic, orthodox Christianity has always considered to be a cult, many Christians will be leery of him.

Let me say at this point that it is not my intent to get into a big debate here about whether it is or is not a cult. For what it is worth, I do in fact believe that it is. It denies too many of the core Christian beliefs to be called just a fringe Christian group.

But there are hundreds of websites where these matters are discussed and debated. Those who want to get into these theological debates are urged to go there. For what it is worth, I would certainly vote for Romney, not because I approve of his Mormonism, but because I so strongly disapprove of his rival.

But the worry is this: just how many Christians – especially evangelical, Bible-believing Christians – will not vote for Romney simply because he is a Mormon? I do not know how many might do this, but it could well be a very sizable number indeed.

The problem is, if enough Christians fail to vote for Romney, they will by default allow Obama to get back in. If nothing else, we have to think of this in terms of the lesser of two evils. In my book Obama is clearly the far worse candidate in just so many ways.

And just how much Romney could do as president to promote particular Mormon doctrines and teachings really would seem to be negligible. I really do not think this is something we have to worry about very much. All we can hope is that he would offer us at least some mildly conservative leadership, and hopefully stand strong on some key issues. As I say, he is not my preferred candidate by any means.

But we are now stuck with him, and he is far better than the Democratic alternative. But just a few more words on the Mormon issue if I may. I do invite those Christians who are concerned about this to be aware of a new document which a number of Christian leaders have recently produced and signed.

It is called: For the sake of the gospel! It says it is “A Biblical Call to Christian Ministers and Leaders” concerning Mitt Romney, Mormonism and the Christian Vote. It begins as follows: “For the sake of the Gospel, we, the undersigned, call upon Christian leaders and their respective ministries and organizations, if you plan on endorsing Governor Mitt Romney for the office of President of the United States, do so by clearly and unequivocally distancing yourself and Biblical Christianity from his Mormon beliefs.

“We believe in the freedom of religion, the free exercise thereof, and the principles of a constitutional republic. Our Constitution does not require a religious ‘test’ for any candidate to qualify for political office. Anyone should be allowed to run for office and serve if elected – regardless of their religious affiliations or lack thereof.

“Further, it is not our intention with this call to bind the conscience of any individual by telling them how to vote. If an evangelical Christian chooses to vote for Mr. Romney (President Obama or any candidate), that is a decision between themselves and God.

“The purpose of this call to evangelical Christians and leaders is two-fold:
-To protect the purity and integrity of the Biblical Gospel.
-To seize the opportunity to educate the America Public and Christians to the fundamental differences between historic Christian faith and that of the Latter-day Saints (Mormons).”

The document goes on to highlight some of these very real differences. I have signed the document. I agree with it. Mormonism is not identical to biblical Christianity. But on the other hand, too much is at stake if too many Christians simply boycott the election, refusing to vote in Romney.

Thus I must again reiterate my main and most vital point here: This election is not so much about electing Mitt Romney. What it is really all about is un-electing Barack Hussein Obama. Individual Christians will of course have to prayerfully consider how they will vote in November. Some in good conscience may decline to vote for Romney.

Hopefully all in good conscience will decline to vote for Obama. But we must be aware of the very high stakes here, and what a second Obama term would mean to America and the world, but more importantly, to religious freedom itself. We simply have far too much to lose if he gets re-elected. So please vote prayerfully, thoughtfully and carefully.

forthesakeofthegospel.com/document/

[1500 words]

47 Responses to On Mitt Romney and America’s Future

  • It is far from “clear” that Romney will get the nod. Most people are not even aware that Ron Paul is sweeping delegates and that by the RNC’s own rules and even it’s attorney the so-called “bound” delegates are not bound at all but considered free agents who can vote their conscience.

    http://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/05/rnc-its-attorney-proclaim-state-delegates-unbound/

    I won’t be voting for him on several accounts. To even speak of him being the nominee at this point is rather moot. The delegates are not bound and Paul is clearly taking many from Romney. Second, He is a Mormon and there is no way in good conscience that I could support a man that claims the theological heresies of Mormonism is Christian, thus giving that man a national platform where that lie would be expressed. It would be to call further judgment upon our nation, though we think otherwise. Finally, the man is the farthest thing from conservative. He is not one that defines the traditional family with the traditional definition as expressed in his support of homosexual couples adopting children. Though he maintains a ‘stance’ on homosexual “marriage”, that is questionable too as he brought on a spokesman who was a flaming homosexual in full support of homosexual “marriage.” There are many other things but time nor space will premit me to write.
    Tim Brown

  • Thanks Tim

    I have already stated my opinion in the article so no need to repeat myself here. But three quick points if I may:
    -Paul really has almost no chance of winning the nomination.
    -I would fear him as much as, if not more than, Romney. His radical libertarianism (let’s legalise drugs, prostitution, etc) is toxic, and I do not see how any decent Christian could support him because of that. Indeed, abortion and marriage issues would fare no better under him, and his lousy foreign policy positions, along with anti-Israel sentiments, would also destroy the nation.
    -If all Christians put theology ahead of the national interest in this situation, then we will simply get another four years of Obama. And that will somehow be a better option for Christians? It will simply mean that real believers start finding themselves in jail in mass numbers. I would rather fight for religious freedom now thanks.

    Sorry, but I am not with you here, but thanks for sharing your thoughts.
    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • This is a bit of good news. Have a look at this graph. It seems Obama has made a big mistake getting in bed with the militant homosexuals, with a real dip in approval in the polls:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/public_divorces_obama/

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Dear Bill, I have some relatives in the U.S.A. who are devout Mormons. Of course there is no need to ask who they support. Voting is not compulsory in the U.S.A. as it is in Australia. If some conservative Christians in the U.S.A. refuse to vote at all, they will get the Government they deserve. As a Catholic I hope that if Mitt Romney is elected, he will be far more receptive of conservative Christians than Barack Obama obviously is. Let us see what happens.
    Regards, Franklin Wood

  • Thanks Franklin

    Yes I know many Mormons and I often work together with them in some of these culture wars. While I differ from them theologically of course, I believe that there is a place for co-belligerency on some of these battles. But I seek to make that case elsewhere.

    See here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2010/09/02/on-co-belligerency/

    And here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2009/11/27/on-biblical-cooperation-and-separation/

    I realise of course that some Christians do not at all believe in co-belligerency, but then we will simply have to differ on some of these matters. None of us have all the truth, and none of us have all the right answers on all these issues. Hopefully the various Christian sides can learn from each other, even though at places disagreeing.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Not voting for Romney because he is a Mormon is a very, very stupid thing to do. Not voting for Romney is a de facto vote for Obama – the most anti-conservative/Christian, fiscally irresponsible president in history.

    People have to remember they are not voting for a Theologian-in-Chief.

    I have heard some of the speeches Romney has been given and he has really come out in support of fiscal discipline and free markets. And he is not afraid to stick it to Obama.

    For what it is worth, two conservatives I really admire, Anne Coulter and Dennis Prager are both quite keen on Romney. Coulter “What’s their Problem with Romney?”;

    “As governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, Mitt Romney did something even Ronald Reagan didn’t do as governor of California: He balanced the budget without raising taxes.

    Romney became deeply pro-life as governor of the aforementioned liberal state and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. (Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich lobbied President George W. Bush to allow embryonic stem cell research.)

    Romney’s approach to illegal immigration in Massachusetts resembled what Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona is doing today, making her a right-wing heroine.

    Romney pushed the conservative alternative to national health care that, had it been adopted in the 49 other states, would have killed Obamacare in the crib by solving the health insurance problem at the state level.

    Unlike actual Establishment candidates, Romney has never worked in Washington, much less spent his entire life as a professional politician. He’s had a Midas touch with every enterprise he has ever run, including Bain Capital, the Olympics and Massachusetts.”

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-02-22.html

    Damien Spillane

  • Bill and Damien are totally right. The point of government is to restrain evil (Romans 13). Therefore the only good biblical way to vote is to try to restrain as much evil as possible. Staying at home or wasting a vote on a quixotic third party is allowing the most evil candidate to win again, and impose even more evil on the nation. So no Christian should have any qualms about voting for Romney to stop Commissar Hussein Obamov.
    Jonathan Sarfati, US

  • Dear Bill, I respect your viewpoint but I simply cannot believe that God demands that we make a choice between a Mormon and Obama. Sometimes it is simply too hard to discern which is the lesser of two evils.

    A Mormon President! Truly, Heaven help us.

    Peter Murnane

  • Thanks Peter

    Have you ever bought petro from a Mormon, or bought bread? Have you ever had a Mormon policemen protect your home, or have a Mormon soldier fight wars for your freedom? You probably deal with Mormons (and JWs, and atheists, and new Agers, and cultists, and Muslims, and Hindus, and sex fiends) every single day of your life. What are you going to do – hide in a cave the rest of your life to remain pure? Have you ever bought groceries at Safeway? Mormons own it!! Does that mean you are contaminated and in danger of losing your salvation? Please read this article to see what I am getting at here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2009/11/27/on-biblical-cooperation-and-separation/

    We are not voting for a theologian but a president. Romney will not be dealing with doctrines but public policy. If you really think that Obama is somehow better then I have to disagree big time. As I say, he is not my choice – not by a long shot. But compared to Obama, I will take him. But I again laid out my thoughts in the above article, so there is not much more I can say here.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Dear Bill, No, I certainly don’t think ‘Obama is better’ but the effect of electing a out-and-out cultist to the world’s top job is completely unpredictable and could be devastating.

    There are some apparent choices that aren’t really choices at all, for example, ‘Would you prefer to live under Hitler or Stalin?’ And we’re talking here about the presidency of the United States, a position with arguably greater power than that ever wielded by either Hitler or Stalin. After all, this person will be Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces.

    We can’t see into the future and as far as I can see it’s simply too hard to tell which of these appalling candidates would be worse.

    Peter Murnane

  • Thanks again Peter

    No this is not at all a choice between Hitler and Stalin. And yes we know this very minute who will be worse. No question about it. These two candidates are miles apart, and the first duty of all Christians (certainly in America) is to use their brains for the glory of God, and to use some biblical discernment to see such realities.

    Romney did not institute and enforce Mormon doctrines on Massachusetts while Governor. He was not in a position to do so, just as he will not be in a position to do so as President. And you did not answer my questions. Have you ever bought groceries at Safeway? It is a fair question. If you did, were you selling out to the enemy? Did the world cave in? I take it you did not become demon possessed, you did not lose your salvation, and disaster did not break out. Read the article I linked to please to get some more insight on this particular issue if you will. We live, work and breathe with non-Christians every day of our lives.

    We really need to get real here and look at the situation with some discernment and biblical clarity. A second term of Obama will really be the end of everything, in so many ways. Please understand that if Obama gets in again he will destroy America, marriage and family will be ruined, and tens of thousands of Christians may well be jailed. This will simply not happen under Romney.

    As I said, I am not a fan of Romney by any means. I wish there were another option. But at the moment there is no other option, unless God so chooses to intervene. But I would much rather have a principled, competent, capable and honest atheist rule over me than an incompetent, unprincipled, incapable and dishonest Christian – any day of the week. In this case I will gladly take a Mormon over an evil radical such as Obama.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • One could also perhaps make some kind of a comparison with the situation here in Australia here: Tony Abbott vs Julia Gillard.

    Tony Abbott is a Roman Catholic. Whilst I’m not a Roman Catholic and believe Catholicism has it flaws (at the same time it is strong on some issues that sadly we Protestants aren’t), I believe he is a much better choice than the alternative. Tony is pro-life. Julia Gillard is an atheist who is a member of Emily’s List Australia which believes that women should have the right to choose to murder (“abort”) their babies.

    Neither is a perfect choice. Democracy, a non-Biblical form of government is a deeply flawed form of government, but the alternatives are worse.

    Not until the Millennium will see a perfect government.

    Matt Vinay

  • Thanks Matt

    Yes very good point indeed. I am not a Catholic either, so theologically I would have big differences with Tony Abbott. But I would not seek to elect him for theological reasons, but to best run the country with some semblance of biblical values. Anyone who would say Tony and Julia are both equally evil (because of their particular theological stance) is simply not thinking rightly or thinking biblically. No candidate will ever be perfect in a fallen world. So often we do indeed have to pick the lesser of two evils in all sorts of situations.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Completely agree Bill,

    When there is a clear distinction, Christians must vote for the best candidate, no matter how imperfect he is.

    Not to vote, or to ‘waste’ your vote is not a principled act of protest, but is just plain stupid and irresponsible.

    Mansel Rogerson

  • Yes exactly right Mansel. My great fear is that we will have far too many stupid and irresponsible Christians who will not vote for Romney, and as a result we will see Obama waltz right back in and destroy even more of America and the world. How can some believers be so utterly foolish and unwise?

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks guys. There is an excellent article in the current edition of News Weekly entitled: “Is Obama the US’s most anti-Christian president?” It provides many dozens of chilling examples, and all this could never be said of Romney. It should go online in a week or two, and I will link to it then.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • A lot of Paulbotulists fall into this category, as do supporters of that moronic “Constitution Party”, which just helps leftards get elected by drawing the self-righteous Christian vote.
    Jonathan Sarfati, US

  • Thanks Jonathan

    Yes that is another big worry. Hopefully Ron Paul will well and truly drop out before too long, and not siphon votes away from Romney come November. This has happened before where independents have drawn away conservative votes, allowing the Democrats to get in. Just recall Ross Perot in 1992: by being a spoiler, he kept Bush out and helped to get Clinton in. We do not need a repeat of that disaster occurring this year.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Good points from Bill.

    I’d like to ask Peter how he thinks that a Mormon President would be a ‘disaster’? Maybe he would, but how does this automatically flow from his being a Mormon?

    Mormons share many of the values that Christians do and it is in the area of values and not theology that politics is concerned.

    And does Peter think Obama’s leftism is not a religion? Albeit a secular one. Leftism is every bit as religious as Mormonism. But in not voting for Romney one is voting by default for Obama who adheres to a religion that is much further from Christian values.

    Damien Spillane

  • Yes quite right Damien. Obama’s secular humanism will do far more damage to America, to faith, to freedom and to family than Romney’s religion ever will – no question about it.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • On a similar note. How ironic that Obama is moving the US in the direction of welfare-state Sweden but Sweden is moving away from this model;

    “The president has been accused of seeking to turn the U.S. into an Americanized Western European welfare state. If he insists on imitating one particular model, we suggest he follow the Swedish paradigm. Sweden has a reputation as the prototypical cradle-to-grave socialist European nation, and the political left has long yearned for America to be more like the Scandinavian nation. But it’s looking through a smudged window. With little notice, Sweden has changed.”

    http://news.investors.com/article/611249/201205111844/swedish-model-brings-economic-growth.htm

    Damien Spillane

  • Interesting article I found today:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-13/cheers-as-romney-rejects-same-sex-marriage/4008412

    It’s a sad day when a confessed Mormon can more closely align to the Bible than someone who claims to be a Christian and relies on Bible verses for his policies (see Obama’s references to the “golden rule”).
    It really is the lesser of two evils.

    Also it is worth noting that the administration behind the two candidates is likely to be significantly different. For instance, I wouldn’t imagine Jim Wallis will have Romney’s ear.

    Regards,

    Cameron Spink, RESISTANCE THINKING CO-ORDINATOR

  • Dear Bill, I have no wish to offend anyone and it’s plain that I find myself in a minority of one in this particular discussion. I’ll therefore withdraw from the debate while saying only this: ‘Lesser of two evils’ thinking is a good servant but a bad master. In my opinion, ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me’ overrides ‘lesser of two evils’ here. With the option of legal abstention being available, I can’t see how a Christian can deliberately support the openly-declared follower of a false god for President of the United States. And please believe me, there are many, many American Christians who agree with me.

    Peter Murnane

  • Thanks again Peter

    You are certainly welcome to your point of view, and you certainly can keep coming here if you like with comments. I appreciate your thoughts, even if I happen to disagree with them!

    Because we live in a fallen world, where nothing is perfect, we constantly have to live with the lesser of two evils. That is reality in a world of sinful men and women, and pretending we can be in some ideal world where only perfectly good and easy choices can be made is just not going to happen, and helps no one I am afraid.

    You are right to be concerned about Romney. I am concerned as well. I keep saying that. But as I also keep insisting, we must think clearly here. We are not voting on the following:
    -to have a Mormon teach in your Sunday School;
    -to have a Mormon preach in your church;
    -to have a Mormon lecture in theology in your seminary;
    -to have a Mormon change laws to line up with Mormon teaching;
    -to have the Book of Mormon become mandatory reading for all Americans;
    -to have Utah made the nation’s capital;
    -to have Joseph Smith become a national hero;
    -to have Mormon practices become official US policy and practice;
    -and so on.

    Why is this so hard to understand? We are electing him to be President, and as Jonathan rightly pointed out, that mainly has to do with restraining evil, as Romans 13:1-7 makes clear. We are not asking him to change the way Christians believe, or any other such thing. And he did not do that while Governor either.

    And respectfully, you keep refusing to answer my questions! Are you aware of the full religious and theological background of everyone you do business with or have any dealings with? Are you 100% certain they are all pure? That is, only Bible-believing born again Christians? If not, why not?

    Why is it that you are quite happy to potentially deal with pagans (or who knows what: Mormons, Satan worshippers, Muslims, secular humanists, New Agers, child pornographers, etc) every single day of your life, but not have a Mormon president? Why are you happy to do your banking, your life insurance, your workplace, your shopping, your car, your finances, your health care, even your favourite sports teams, and every other thing of daily life with those who may not be of your theological persuasion? Why is it OK to bank with a Mormon or a pagan or an atheist, to work for them, to deal with them every day, yet it is so problematic to have one as a President?

    Please explain how having a Mormon president entails “having other gods before Him” as you claim, but it is not a case of this when you deal with atheists and false religionists every day of your life, whether in your work place, in your shopping, your financial transactions, etc. I fail to see how one is quite wrong and the other is quite right. Please explain it to me Peter. Again, I suspect you still have not read the article I linked to, which looks at all this in more detail.

    Yes I know that there are others like you who feel this way. And to be honest that worries me sick. All that it means is that we will have Obama for a second term, and even more disaster will unfold. And as all this horrific destruction takes place, we will have some Christians smugly standing by, wiping their hands, saying, “Well, at least I did not vote for that horrible Mormon”. And they somehow think their consciences will be clean as a result.

    As I say, I am not at all thrilled with the idea of Romney being president. But I am far less thrilled with the idea of Obama getting a second term. There are vast moral and other differences between these two outcomes. If we as Christians cannot think straight here, then we really are going down the tubes fast.

    Respectfully this is why we are losing one battle after another, with very confused and unhelpful thinking as this. But at the end of the day each Christian must prayerfully consider how they must act here. So thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Obviously I am not with you on this one, and I think there will be horrendous and disastrous long-term consequences if we follow your line of thought and allow Obama back in. But I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree here.

    Bless you,
    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Personally speaking, I take voting as a serious responsibility. I hope Aussie Christians aren’t apathetic about politics or so disillusioned that they vote informally or don’t turn up at the polling booth.
    Ross McPhee

  • These “vote my conscience” Christians who stay home will need to answer to God for their grievous sin of omission. And other Christians should hold them accountable as Obamov steps up his persecution of Christians that he has already started (see Obama’s War Against the Church) and will step up next term when he no longer needs to fear election reprisals.
    Jonathan Sarfati, US

  • I can appreciate what Peter is saying; his concerns seem genuine and well-intentioned.

    However, what exactly does NOT voting for either candidate get you? Practically speaking, it seems to get you another term with Obama and a further slide into societal decay. Should not our conscience be scarred at the thought of failing to act to prevent the tyranny this man?

    As Scott Klusendorf said on a recent ‘pro-life’ podcast, “Our task is now very simply the defeat of the Democrat Party … Barring nothing else, that must be our number one agenda. It must done quickly. It must be done swiftly… Every last one of them that can be beaten must be beaten.”

    As an Australian citizen, I only wish I had the opportunity that many other US Christian citizens seem to be willing to let pass them by. I certainly won’t be passing up the opportunity to unseat Julia when her turn comes around.

    Duane Proud

  • I’m not at all happy with Romney, but alas, I agree Obama is so evil that I must cast an anti-Obama vote. Back to the old praying and fasting, I suppose.
    Anna von Marburg

  • I’ve read all the above and have to say it is clear to me. Get rid of Obama. Passive Christianity and murky thinking Christianity is not Christianity at all. To abstain from casting a vote is not just a shame, it is a sham. It is the reason we are, where we are today. Both in Australia and America. Act, do, vote!
    Jamie Bowman

  • Thank you Bill and everyone who has contributed comments, it has made things a lot clearer in my mind about this issue.
    What I think is important beyond the somewhat saddening fact that Americans have to choose “the lesser” of 2 evils rather than being able to wholeheartedly endorse the president behind which they can fully stand. The next term, hopefully under Romney efforts the opportunity of regrouping and redoubling the efforts to bring and truly morally and fiscally conservative republican candidate before the American people over the next 4 years, something that may not be possible under a second Obama term. So, rather than seeing it as so disappointing, give thanks to God for the opportunity to give America time to do a U-turn.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  • Also consider: both Paul and Peter urged the nascent Church to submit to worldly authority. This worldly authority wasn’t the Christianised British Monarchy, nor the technically theological neutral US congress, but the pagan Roman emperor. It does not compromise the Church’s mission to support the worldly authority of a non-Christian ruler.

    To ask whether Romney or Obama would be absolutely beneficial to the Church in America (or to America itself, for that matter), is an incredibly naive question. We don’t even ask that question when appointing pastors or bishops, let alone non-Christian rulers, because no-one other than God himself can make claim to being absolutely beneficial. The question is always a comparative one, and if one cannot see a vast comparative difference between Obama and Romney, then there is a serious perception problem.

    As a moral analogy, obeying a “keep off the grass” sign in preference to rescuing a drowning child is not showing wisdom.

    In a “first past the post system”, remember that refusing to vote is not showing disapproval for both candidates; it is showing that you believe there is no relevant difference between the candidates. If your lack of vote might prevent both candidates from being elected, that would be relevant, but in the US system all not voting does is let everyone else make the choice.

    (Which is why I think mandatory preferential voting is much better that FPTP voting – you make both a positive (I prefer this candidate over all others) and negative (I dis-prefer this candidate over all others) statement, and thus don’t risk “wasting” a vote to express your real preferences)
    Andrew White

  • Yes, Andrew, Peter actually tells us to pray for our leaders regularly, so we can live in peace.
    I think, actually the optional preferential system is even better than the mandatory one, as you don’t have to give even the last preference to the candidate you really don’t want to see elected. If we had had optional preferential instead of mandatory in the last federal election, I am not certain Labour would have made it in at all and I don’t think they got in on second and third preferences, but possibly on “the bottom of the barrel” so to speak.
    If you vote conservative, you usually group all the similarly conservative candidates at the top and only give the other side the last votes just because you have to, but they can still count for those you don’t want to get in.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  • Off topic, but I want to follow this one up:

    I think, actually the optional preferential system is even better than the mandatory one, as you don’t have to give even the last preference to the candidate you really don’t want to see elected.

    Not quite.

    (1) Your last preference is never used, because for that to happen the election has come down to a single candidate (at which point it’s already over).

    (2) Just as in FPTP, you don’t actually have the option to vote “none of the above”. An empty vote is “either”, not “neither”.

    Every system I’m familiar with defines the winner based on “valid votes cast”, not total voters. Invalidate your vote, and you’re saying that everyone else gets to choose. You don’t prevent the election from having a result.

    (3) Optional preferential can cause issues if there are several “similar” candidates, since some people are lazy / intimidated and will just vote 1 or 2 and then stop, which ends up as FPTP. Mandatory preferential forces people to vote all the way down the chain. “Above the line” voting, as per the (Australian) federal senate, is one way of achieving quick votes while still maintaining mandatory preferential – you simply delegate your preferences to your #1 candidate to distribute, according to a published roster. I believe some state elections use this system – you can either vote 1 only (and let the candidate distribute your preference) or vote fully.

    Andrew White

  • Thanks guys. I have written more fully about all this here:

    https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/05/17/on-mormon-presidents/

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks again guys. If you are not yet convinced about why Obama needs to go, here is the case against him:

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=106938

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • It seems to me with the choices we have had in the last few presidents that America is headed for judgment. And I don’t think American for sure needs another term with a closet Muslim. Mormons are definitely a cult, again we have a choice between 2 evils, but remember the people have picked Romney as the running candidate. It has been by choice, so if this does not tell us the real condition of America. There were better candidates to chose from for sure, but again the people have chosen. God will give America the leader that will take this country down the road of destruction. Again, the really sad part of this is – the PEOPLE that have chosen these so called leaders. So the condition of this country is far deeper than just a couple of bad candidates to chose from. It’s really the condition of the majority of people living in this country that scares me…
    Phillips

  • Just a P.S. to the afore mentioned comment: I guess if ones going to be executed, then it’s kinda like you get to choose the method. To be bitten to death by a rattlesnake (head cut off), or shot. Your dead either way…
    John Phillips

  • Thanks John

    As I said in my article, Romney is not my preferred choice – not by any means. But compared to Obama, I will take him. And I am not so pessimistic as you – I do believe that God is still in control, and he can turn things around.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Yes, I believe also that God is most defiantly in control. But I find it rather strange that neither candidate again is worthy of our Christian vote. However, if we don’t at least vote for the lesser then in essence we have gave a vote to Obama.
    John Phillips

  • Thanks John

    Yes in a fallen world sometimes all we can hope for is to run with the lesser of two evils. But far better Romney than Obama.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks guys

    Matt Barber puts it this way:

    “It’s simple: A Christian nonvote is a vote for Mr. Obama in that it fails to affirmatively cancel out an Obama vote. Furthermore, any Christian who votes for Mr. Obama will get to take that up with God. This leaves us with our third and final choice: Christians must vote for Mitt Romney. A second Obama term is simply unacceptable. We won’t survive it.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/7/christians-should-vote-for-romney/

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks again guys

    Rebecca Hagelin gets it right:

    “Romney, while far from perfect, has got to win this election if we are going to have any hope of preserving biblical morality or the American dream. I never look for the best Christian to be President – I look for the one who best reflects a strong moral character, and who is most likely to preserve my rights as a Christian and freedom-loving American.”

    http://townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/2012/09/13/can_a_christian_vote_for_a_nonchristian_candidate

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Very wise words from John MacArthur:

    “So what I would say is- look, whether or not a person who runs for president or vice president or congress or senate or governor, whether or not that person is a Christian, is not the issue- that’s not the role of government. You’re not choosing a pastor. Since when all of a sudden do we think that someone’s religion is the issue in picking a president anymore than it would be an issue in picking a pilot to fly you somewhere? I don’t really care what the religion is, I just want to know he can land the plane.”

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks Bill for all your interesting facts and feedback. I am an Australian and I can now certainly pray for the Lord to help the Americans to be wise who to vote as it is very crucial and a difficult situation that they are facing. God knows the best & I believe He has the ultimate say.

    Molly Lim

  • Thanks Molly

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Bill Whittle gets it quite right here. This 5-minute video is well worth watching:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5v7QQ5vQWg&feature=youtu.be

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Wild Bill gets it quite right here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfWIxRrvFy8&feature=share

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply