Politics in America Social or Moral Issues?

James O. Jones, Jr.

September 13, 2012 

PART ONE:  The purpose of this article is to examine the social/moral issues that dominate our society today, and to show what part these issues play in the upcoming election in November.  I will begin this article by stating that I am a conservative in most areas – socially, economically, morally, and especially in my Christian faith.  What is more, I make no apologies for being so.  This having been said, I want to also state that the purpose of this review is not directly politically motivated.  Rather, it comes from a deeply felt concern for the collective state of our nation and for the individual state of its people.  Even more, it comes from a desire to see true Christians understand the issues that are being debated, and the dire consequences that are the result of our choices.

Yes, I did say “true Christians.”  That may or may not include you; you will have to decide that issue.  According to the Barna Group 2010 research, 83% of Americans claim to be Christian.  Many in this number fall into the category of “Social Christians.”  These claim to be Christian in contrast to being some other world religion such as Islamic or Hindu, or being little or nothing at all, as in being an agnostic or atheist.  By many estimates it is thought that likely no more than 25% of Americans are truly born-again by the Spirit of God and have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  Others argue that the number of “Christians” who are true “Followers of Jesus,” a term that more accurately describes what a true Christian is supposed to be, could be as low as 10%, and some would even press for a lower number.

But while this is a discussion that needs to be made in order that people might truly “examine themselves to see if they are in the faith” (2 Cor 13:5), it is not the purpose of this writing.  The fact is that while nowhere near 83% of those claiming the name are actually walking the walk, many of that 83% do hold to a higher set of Christian values and moral standards than those with no religious background at all.  So, once again, let me stress that the purpose of this article is to delineate the issues that dominate our society today, and to examine these issues from a biblical perspective.

Ah! There is that awful term – biblical perspective.  I admit that my conservatism is showing.  So allow me to state simply, if as a “Christian” you do not have as your source of authority God’s revelation of Himself – His nature, His character, and His commandments, in other words, the Bible – then you have become a god unto yourself.  As a result you will find that your moral and ethical base for right and wrong has become that which suits your own sense of pride, pleasure, and personal pursuits.  If the Bible is not our final authority on everything to which it speaks, life literally becomes every man (and woman) for himself (herself).  We will have returned to what God saw upon the earth prior to His judgment by the Flood in the days of Noah, “Then the Lordsaw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5).

First, I want to point out that the term “social issues” is used in the place of what is really being debated – moral issues.  Topics like abortion, contraception, homosexuality, premarital sexual relations, extramarital sexual relations, what constitutes marriage and the like are all centered directly in our understanding of the moral issues of life, sexuality, and the Divine institution of marriage.  Therefore, these debates, at least for Christians, are moral and not simply social.

If you look back at US history you will likely not find any of these “social issues” debated in any election prior to the late 1960s.  Why?  Because prior to the sexual revolution of the 60s these social issues were called what they actually were, moral issues.  And every candidate from any party, regardless of their personal views, knew well that debating against Biblical morality would be a surefire way to lose an election.  Fifty years later such is not the case!  Many proudly stand for, and even run on, these very issues.  What is more, many of those 83% of self proclaimed Christians have been willing to buy into the arguments that abortion is simply termination of unwanted tissue, homosexual relationships are an acceptable alternative lifestyle, marriage can be defined as a union between two persons of the same sex, and any type of sexual relations outside of marriage is simply a matter of personal choice.  However, all of these opinions are those of men, and not of God.  They lead to death, chaos, destruction, and eventual judgment.  In Part Two we will look deeper at how these issues are debated in our political climate of 2012.

For again the Edomites had come, attacked Judah, and carried away captives.

The Philistines also had invaded the cities of the lowland and of the South of Judah,

and had taken Beth Shemesh, Aijalon, Gederoth, Sochoh with its villages,

Timnah with its villages, and Gimzo with its villages; and they dwelt there.

For the Lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel,

for he had encouraged moral decline in Judah

and had been continually unfaithful to the Lord.

2 Chronicles 28:17-19

PART TWO:    There was a time many years ago in American politics when the vast majority of candidates running for political office were moral men and women who all wanted to take America to pretty much the same place.  The destination was a place where America was militarily strong, where individuals had the opportunity to work hard and be successful in whatever business or enterprise they so chose, where those who were down on their luck due to no fault of their own could be given a hand up so they could once again pursue the American dream, a place where its citizens could depend on ‘liberty and justice for all’ because justice was based on an authority given to mankind by his Creator and administered by a government ordained by God.

There was little doubt that every person asking for your vote desired what was best for America, and best for the individual people of America.  They might have different views as to the best route to take to that ideal place, but the intent of all was to get us safely there.  Throughout our history the immoral injustices and bigotries of one generation have been corrected in the next by a people united in their belief in Biblical morality and the freedoms based on that morality stated in the Declaration of Independence and written into our Constitution.  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  No, not every person or every politician was a devout Christian by any means, but there was a general acceptance of God and Biblical morality, even if that morality was not being lived out in one’s personal life.  But all of this was about to change.

On April 8, 1966, Time Magazine asked the question in bold red type, “Is God Dead?”  This reflected the debates of the time among “intellectuals” and liberal theologians as to the relevance of God in modern society, an argument extended by some to questioning his very existence.  This questioning of the relevance of God in our personal and national pursuits coupled with the new drug culture and battles for sexual freedom began the steep and expedited slip of our society toward hedonism and away from God. One of the slogans of the time was, “If it feels good, do it!”  This pretty much states the new mentality toward life in a nutshell.  And from that time until now we have marched as a society toward an ever increasing fulfillment of that godless philosophy.

Today there are no absolutes, morality is a relative term, and what began as a sexual revolution has brought us to the place where many politicians ask for your vote by promising to fight for your right to brutally murder innocent  life on demand, openly practice every kind of sexual perversion, to redefine what has stood for six thousand years as the only understanding of marriage – the union between a man and a woman, and even to make the argument that government should provide free condoms and contraception to everyone, including underage school children as young as twelve.  Amazing that it takes written parental consent to dispense an aspirin to a seventeen year old, but you can give contraception to a thirteen year old without notifying the parents you have done so.  Then they promise to pursue laws which allow anyone who speaks out against such practices to be prosecuted under “hate crime” legislation.

Let me be clear.  Abortion is murder.  Life begins at conception – physical and spiritual life.  We can know this without doubt as there are only three possibilities for when life begins in the unborn baby.  I will be glad to forward a short article placed into one of our Wesley Institute studies that will explain these three possibilities and why two of the three contradict Scripture (Just email and ask for it if you are interested).  In the beginning abortion was relegated mostly to the first trimester, then to the second, on to the third, and now even partial-birth abortion is argued as a “woman’s right.”  So you think that is as bad as it can get?  Listen to this from the U.K. Telegraph quoting a report published in the Journal of Medical Ethics titled,After Birth Abortion, which states “newborn babies are not ‘actual persons’ and do not have a ‘moral right to life.’”  The article also argues that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

“These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:16-19).  It matters not what party the person represents, or what party you feel you must supportAny politician running on a platform of legal abortion supports the murder of innocent children.  As a Christian you cannot knowingly vote for that person without bringing the judgment of God on this nation, and possibly even on you, yourself!

Sexual sin comes in all shapes, forms, and sizes.  Society has done a good job camouflaging these sins by simply renaming them so they do not sound so bad.  Man calls sexual relations outside of marriage hooking up; God calls it fornication.  Man calls homosexual relations an alternative lifestyle; God calls it an abomination.  Man calls extra-marital sexual relations an affair; God calls it adultery.  The Bible has much to say about sexual sin, but never in one place is it even hinted that God will overlook it, condone it, ignore it, or not judge it.  Rampant sexual immorality always precedes God’s judgment on a nation and its final destruction.  And for the individual who practices such things, without repentance and turning away from his or her sin, there is no promise of heaven.

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).  Politicians who run on promises that promote promiscuity among underage youth, who support and condone perverse sexual relations among adults, who support the redefining of what God ordained marriage to be, the union of one man to one woman, and who show no concern for the basic morality that must govern any free people, these men and women cannot be elected to positions of leadership in this nation without asking for God’s judgment to come upon us.  God is longsuffering, but His wrath will surely come upon the wicked, and upon a nation that has become “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (2 Tim 3:4).

Benjamin Franklin, signer of the Declaration of Independence, stated, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”  He also declared, “Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.”   John Adams, the second president of the United States, in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”   Noah Webster, author of the first American Speller and the first Dictionary said, “The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.” 

In Part Three we will examine many of the differences in the political platforms of our day, and take notice of how personal beliefs of key political leaders fit into our conversation thus far.

Wisdom rests in the heart of him who has understanding,

But what is in the heart of fools is made known.

Righteousness exalts a nation,

But sin is a reproach to any people.

Proverbs 14:33-34

PART THREE:  As stated in Part One, there was a time when candidates and political platforms all had a moral base that did not, or could not, wander too far from the accepted morality of the Church, as that was the basis of societal views.  Personal lives in many cases did not live up to that accepted morality, but that was private and not a public stand for that which was known to be immoral and contrary to the mores of the day.  But as society drifted farther and farther from the moral code of the Bible, political platforms and their candidates could project a much different vision for America than what would have been acceptable in the preceding generation.  As the decay of Biblical morality progressed in each subsequent generation, so did the political climate.  It was no longer necessary to hold to a Biblical standard in order to be elected to an office of leadership. And, eventually and tragically, it even became possible to run against Biblical standards of morality and win elections by doing so.

Some of the same differences that had always existed still were present, such as the best way to achieve a militarily strong America, what economic system was best to produce a thriving economy, whether it was better to have a union or non-union work force, and when a hand upto those in need would become a hand out that would lead to dependence on government.  Christians and non-Christians alike differed in their views and positions on these types of issues.  The two major political parties that existed in America began to grow farther and farther apart on these issues, striving to win the hearts and the loyalty of Americans who themselves leaned to the positions taken in their party platform.  Soon candidates who wanted party support had to adhere to the party platform, even if that platform differed from their private position on an issue.  Over time this has brought us to where we are today – two distinct parties with two diverse platforms vying for the support of the American voter, at least those who still care enough to vote!

Now, if all that was involved were “social issues” such as economic policy, size of military, union or non-union workers, how much or how little welfare is good and acceptable, then results would have to decide which policies were better.  I understand that there may be some spiritual or biblical principles that could be argued for one’s position on either side, but mostly these are social and not moral issues. Personally, I prefer small government, strong military defense, conservative budgeted spending, limited welfare programs, and in this day, non-unionized workers.  I know some Christians who differ on almost every one of my positions. And, as the old saying goes, this is a free country, so they have the right to be wrong if they want to (smiley face).  But seriously, this is what has made America stand apart from the rest of the world, the ability to have strong debate on issues where people differ greatly in their opinions, yet when all is said and done, to be able to come together and work productively under whatever policies are enacted at the time.

But what about those issues which extend beyond the social and into the moral realm?  Do they take a back seat to the issues that affect our pocketbooks, our places of business, and our party loyalty?  For Christians, they dare not!  As a true Christian I dare not give my support to a person or political party who publically takes a position opposed to God and His inspired Word.  To do so makes me complicit in another’s sin.  Listen to what Paul the Apostle said In Romans 1:32.  After listing a multitude of sins that are practiced by those who do not retain God in their knowledge, Paul concludes by saying, “…who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”  We must not lend our approval to those who practice, or propose to make acceptable, the sins God has declared are deserving of death.

I want to share some statistics from a 2010 Gallup poll of a cross section of Americans on what is perceived to be morally acceptable behavior.  I will limit the poll’s results to those issues already mentioned, that is abortion, sexuality, and what constitutes marriage.  On the issue of abortion, 38% stated that it was morally acceptable, while 50% stated it was morally wrong, leaving 12 % undecided or neutral.  Sex between an unmarried man and woman was reported as morally acceptable by 59% of those polled, while only 38% stated it was not morally acceptable.  This supports the findings that 54% believed it morally acceptable for a woman to have a baby outside of marriage, while 40 % believed it was not morally acceptable.

This next statistic is a little shocking.  When asked about the moral acceptability of a homosexual relationship, 52% responded that it was acceptable, 43% said it was not, and 5% were not sure – this from a country where 83% of its population declare themselves to be “Christian”?   So it is easy to see that the nation is pretty much split when it comes to what has traditionally been considered as moral issues, except on the issue of adultery.  It is interesting to note that when asked about a married man or woman having an affair, only 6% said it was morally acceptable, while 92% said it was not, leaving only 2% neutral or undecided.  This is amazing when it is reported that some 50% of marriages have experienced an affair by one or both spouses.

The next thing we will consider is how these same issues were divided along the lines of political party, listing results for Democrat, Independent, and Republican.  Again, considering the issue of abortion, 51% of self-proclaimed Democrats stated that abortion was morally acceptable, while 39% of Independents and 26% of Republicans believed it to be morally acceptable.  When asked about the moral acceptability of Gay or Lesbian relationships, 61% of Democrats, 61% of Independents, and 35% of Republicans believed it to be morally acceptable.  As concerning premarital sexual relations, Democrats – 67%, Independents – 64%, and Republicans – 47%, said it was morally acceptable, while Democrats – 61%, Independents – 59%, and Republicans – 41%, said having a baby outside of marriage was also morally acceptable.  Oh, and the issue of adultery (extramarital affairs), 7% Democrats, 7% Independents, and 3% Republicans, believed it to be morally acceptable. Obviously a lot of people do not practice what they preach!

So what are we to conclude from these statistics?  First, that while the self-proclaimed Republicans seem to lean a bit more to traditional moral values than the other two parties, moral values are not as clearly divided between party lines as some have thought.  Second, it can be clearly seen that “Christians” are not so often voting their proclaimed moral values as they are the other “social” issues that affect them.  Third, if moral values were to be the focus of campaigns, persons of all parties might have to switch their loyalties, if they vote what they say they believe.

Due to the length of this Part Three of our look into Politics in America, I will save the examination of the political platforms of the two main parties for Part Four.  Then to complete our examination, in Part Five we will look at the two candidates for the presidency of the United States to see where they fit in light of these moral values.

Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good.

 Anyone who does what is good is from God.

Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.

3 John 1:11

PART FOUR:  I would imagine that everyone is familiar with “Political Party Platforms.”  The platform is a political party’s, or candidate’s, written statement of principles and plans. It is usually developed by a committee either at the party convention, or more likely prior to the convention, and then ratified by the convention delegates.  Candidates within the party are expected to support the platform, even if they might hold personal beliefs that differ somewhat.  Theoretically the platform is supported by the “majority” of the party else the platform would not be ratified.  But as we saw in the Part Three statistics, at least concerning the moral issues, there are those in each party that do not agree with certain “planks” in their party’s platform.  So if they were to vote based upon their answers to the “moral issues” which we have discussed, they would have to vote for candidates running within the opposing party.

Enter the “Independent voter.”  This group supposedly votes their “conscience” and not along party lines.  While cross party voting occurs among Democrats and Republicans, it is likely hidden out of ‘shame’ or fear of verbal reprisal.  Independents, on the other hand, are proud of their cross party-line voting.  However, in looking at all the issues in the Gallup Poll (we have only looked at a few as examples – other issues not dealt with in this article include the death penalty, stem cell research, doctor-assisted suicide, gambling, cloning of animals, etc.), on moral issues those self-proclaimed Independents are much closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans in most areas.  So it would appear obvious that many people are voting for some priority other than that of biblical morality.  We can also conclude that there are many Christians who do not mind voting contrary to what the Bible plainly teaches on these subjects of morality.

I have conversed with many who are Christians in name only, and some who may actually be born-again, who would deny that the Bible is the final authority on such issues.  Some would even try to interpret certain biblical passages so as to support their incorrect and often immoral views.  There is not much that can be done to change the minds of people quickly who reject the authority of God’s Word as there are needs greater than just having someone point out the inconsistences in what they proclaim to believe and the way they choose to vote.  I would hope these to be in the minority, however, and that once it is evident that moral issues must outweigh the truly social issues in the hierarchy of importance, these sincere Christians might connect the dots and begin to see the moral issues in a biblical light.

So, on just the few issues we have singled out, what are the party platforms for Democrat and Republican parties?

ABORTION – The Democratic platform states: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

The Republican platform supports the passage of a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, and states that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”

GAY / LESBIAN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE – For the first time, the 2012 Democratic platform supports same-sex marriage. “We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples,” But the platform also tries to avoid collision with religious groups that may oppose the measure. “We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.”

The Republican platform reaffirmed its support for “a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” And it called state court decisions redefining marriage “an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.”

Neither party has seen the need to take a stand on premarital or extra-marital sexual relations, nor have they taken a platform stand on unwed pregnancy being morally unacceptable.  What we can conclude is that the Democratic platform supports abortion on demand, with many pushing for recognition of partial birth abortion, and supports full recognition of rights to homosexual couples, even to the point of redefining marriage.  At least for now they have left in their platform the right for religious institutions to decide whether or not to practice and/or accept this as a part of the sacrament of marriage.  On the issues being considered, an average of about 44% of self-proclaimed Democrats should oppose these immoral planks in the party platform based on their answers in the 2010 Gallup poll.

The Republican platform, on the other hand, supports the total banning of abortion as a fetus is considered a human life and not unwanted tissue, thereby having a constitutional and moral right to life.  This platform also supports a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man to one woman.  It should be noted that the Republican platform does not state that individuals cannot practice a homosexual lifestyle if they so choose, but that this lifestyle should not receive the recognition as the state of marriage.  To be fair, an average of approximately 30% of self-proclaimed Republicans who believe both of these to be morally acceptable should vote with the Democratic platform if they were to vote on these moral issues alone.

So what would happen if every person voted their conscience on just these few moral issues?  First as many as three out of ten Republicans should vote for the candidate running on the Democrat ticket, and approximately four out of ten Democrats should vote for the candidate running on the Republican ticket.  Of those claiming to be Independent, an average on these moral issues breaks right at 50% for and 50% against.  Again, I admit that there are other issues that weigh in as to how a person chooses to vote.  But what I have tried to show is the inconsistency in what many claim to believe concerning morality and how they proceed to vote.

If you have read the three previous parts to this article, you already know that my strongly and biblically supported beliefs are that abortion is murder, that homosexual practice is an abomination, and that marriage is the sacred God ordained union between a man and a woman. Any Christian that believes otherwise is uninformed, deceived, or willingly rebellious.  And no, I do not care to debate that statement!  So if everyone voted their beliefs on these issues alone, what would be the result?  Still a very close election, but the slight edge would go to those running on the Republican platform.

Should a person who believes strongly in what is biblically moral vote for a platform that is clearly opposed to that morality.  I say no.  But what if that person just cannot bring themselves to vote for the other party due to other social issues important to them?  Each person must decide that for himself or herself.  But as much as I believe that Christians have a responsibility to be involved in their government to the point it is possible, if every candidate ran on a platform that opposed biblical morality, I simply would not vote.  What if a candidate holds to a different point of view than the party platform?  We will look at the candidates for this election in Part Five.

Hate what is evil;

cling to what is good.

Romans 12:9b NIV

PART FIVE:  Some of you have been waiting a long time for the final part of this article – the part where I name names and tell you all the good about one and the bad about the other.  Well, the names are easy to figure out as the two candidates running for the office of President of the United States in the 2012 Presidential election are the incumbent Democrat, President Barak Obama, and the Republican challenger, former Governor Mitt Romney.  Now, based on what I have said in the previous four parts of this article, it should come as no surprise who I will be voting for.  But it is important that you know why, and that is what this part is about.

As I begin, please allow me to deal with the often leveled accusation that conservative Christians believe that God is a Republican.  I promise you that God is not impressed with any person’s political party.  And I have tried to fairly demonstrate that in both parties there are true Christians, there are those who are Christian in name only, and there are those who do not claim the name of Christ at all.  And it might as well be said at this point – I believe both candidates to be Christian in name only.  I understand that by saying this a lot of people on each side will be angry, and I will be accused by those who do not understand what it means to be a doctrinally conservative Christian of being racist, intolerant, bigoted, narrow minded, and judgmental.  So let me next deal with this issue for just a moment.

As doctrinally conservative Christians we are not allowed to interpret the Scripture based upon what we would like it to say, what the popular opinion of the day claims it to say, or even what some liberal Christian declares it to say.  Rather we interpret it to mean exactly what it does say.  It is a ridiculous argument to profess you believe in an all powerful, all knowing, all wise God, but then declare that He is apparently unable to communicate accurately what He wants His children to know.  God is the original Great Communicator.   Any problem in communication lies with the receiver, not the sender.

What the Bible clearly teaches concerning Jesus and salvation is that there is only one true and living God and that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.  Jesus is God in the flesh, the only sacrifice for sin and the only way to the Father.  Salvation is by God’s grace through faith and not of our works.  All people are sinners and must turn from sin and to Christ for forgiveness, believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  The Christian must then continue to live and walk in faith with Christ.  And the Apostle Paul said that even if an Angel from heaven preaches to you another Gospel, “let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8).

I do not have the space in this format to give all that the Mormon church teaches, but it is a far cry from that which is listed above.  By their own words they believe “as man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become.”  Jesus is not the God of creation; in fact he is only one of many gods, and the brother of Satan.  Salvation and divine progression is through the Mormon church only and is a matter of works.  On and on we could go with the heresy that the Mormon religion teaches.  Mitt Romney, as a leader in the Mormon church, has accepted “another gospel.”  He has rejected the deity of Christ, made salvation a matter of good works, accepts polytheism (many gods) as reality, and must even believe that one day he too will become a god. These are the lies of Satan, who appeared as an Angel of Light (2 Cor 11:14) to Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church.  To say you believe in Jesus, yet deny all He has proclaimed, is to believe in another Jesus.  And the Book of Mormon is definitely another gospel!

In contrast, the Jesus that Barack Obama speaks of is the Jesus of the Bible.  Obama has stated that he believes Jesus to be the Son of God who died and was resurrected, and that man’s sin can be forgiven through him.  He has stated that he personally believes in Jesus.  Too many people in this day equate salvation as simply believing or the giving of some mental acknowledgment to the Jesus of history.  Both Obama and Romney do that.  But then so does the devil and his demons (James 2:19).  In reality, Obama has rejected Jesus by rejecting who Jesus claims to be and what He has taught.  Obama has publically declared that he believes there are many ways to God, and that those who reject Jesus for some other way will not go to Hell.  He states that Christians should not be involved in evangelizing or proselytizing non-Christians, and that his Christianity has provided the path whereby he can have faith that his good works will be rewarded.

Unlike some, I no longer believe that Obama is a Muslim in disguise, but I do believe he has a strong admiration for Islam and a real blindness concerning the antagonism it holds toward Christianity.  But neither is Obama a born-again Christian.  Like Romney, he is in that 83% of those who claim the name, but he is definitely not one who walks the walk.  While his faith may be sincere, it is not centered in the Bible or on Jesus Christ.  His Christianity would center more in a philosophy of the social teachings of Jesus rather than a relationship with the living Christ. At best I would label Obama a classic humanist with very strong beliefs in the socialist system which in itself can be a religion.

So what about the moral issues of these two men?  Both stand firm on their respective Party Platforms.  Romney has had some change in his history on the issue of abortion, while Obama has never been undecided on his beliefs in this area. I truly believe Romney has had a change of heart and to whatever degree he might have once supported abortion, he does not do so now.  Obama has always supported abortion, and states he always will.  Romney argues for the sanctity of life; Obama argues for a woman’s right to choose.  Romney wants to repeal Roe v. Wade; Obama wants to pass partial birth abortion.  Throughout his career, in both the Illinois Senate & the US Senate, Obama has stood up for a women’s right to choose, consistently earning 100% ratings from pro-choice groups.” (Source: Campaign booklet, “Blueprint for Change”, p. 35-36 Feb 2, 2008).

Concerning gay and lesbian rights, Obama supports legislature that would make same-sex marriage legal and protected with the same rights as that of traditional marriage. This would likely lead to an eventual state requirement that churches and clergy would have to participate in performing same sex marriages or be subject to punishment under discrimination laws. It would also include the right for married gays to readily adopt children.  I would not argue that a married gay couple would not love a child, or that they would intentionally harm a child, but surely you can see how this is a total departure from the family institution God has established.  Romney has taken a stance for traditional family values and the sanctity of traditional marriage, calling for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. I can find no statement from Romney where he has in any way supported, at least publically, the practice of polygamy, an original belief and practice in the Mormon church.

So what we have in this election is a choice between two candidates, both who claim to be Christian, but who in reality are Christian in name only, neither having believed and accepted the person or the teachings of the biblical Jesus.  I would suggest that both men have many secret beliefs that cannot be made public.  Romney’s secrets would likely lie in the deeper teachings of his church to which he has pledged his allegiance.  Would it not be a bit disconcerting to hear Romney proclaim that he will one day be a god like unto the God of the Christian faith, and if he does all the right works, he too will one day have his own planet to populate with subjects created in his own image?  However, I am not sure how Romney’s beliefs concerning his afterlife would actually affect in any negative way the direction he would choose to lead the country if elected to the office of President.  He holds strongly to the traditional moral values of the Bible, and from all appearances truly is a kind, giving, and trustworthy man.  He is faithful to his wife, his family, and his god (little ‘g’ on purpose).

On the other hand, Obama’s secrets lie much more in the here and now.  Obama seeks what he calls social justice.  He wants to make everyone equal by taking from the rich and giving to the poor – classic socialist strategy called the redistribution of wealth.  Equal rights, equal pay, and equal results for all might sound good, but when it is externally enforced, it is devastating to any society.  And as he has plainly and publically stated, he desires to “fundamentally change America.”  Many people fell for the jargon without ever asking if the change he wants is good or bad for the country.  Romney may have secret aspirations to one day be a god of his own world, but Obama has only the lowly secret aspirations of one day being the ruler of this world, not its god.  My observations of Obama have led me to believe he is willing to lie, to deceive, and to even use military power if possible to get his way.  I sense he has the heart of a dictator, and while I do not believe he is the antichrist, as some have whispered, I can understand those who have thought he might be.  And yes, this paragraph states my personal opinion, and there are certainly those who will disagree.  But what he desires to do, and what I believe he is capable of doing, truly frightens me for this country.  Yet, like Romney, he appears to be faithful to his wife, his family, and his god (as a humanist, that would be himself).

The choice we have in this election between these two men is not what I had hoped for.  Neither offers what I would like to see in the oval office.  Yet one man holds to the moral values of his political party’s platform, while the other holds to the immoral values of the party platform on which he runs.  This country is not a theocracy, and there have been many men to hold the highest office in the land who were not true Christians.  Whichever man wins this election will add to that number.  But the choice, while not being ideal, does seem to be a clear one, at least for those who will vote on the moral issues.  And the few moral issues we have discussed should be sufficient for any God-fearing person to vote first and foremost on that basis before consideration of any other.  But also remember that the person elected to be president for the next four years may very likely be in the position to appoint several Supreme Court Justices due to the fact that four of them are in their mid to late seventies.  These appointments will set the direction as to how the High Court will rule on many of these and other moral issues for perhaps decades to come – if God allows us to exist that long!

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law,

and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law . . . .

in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ,

according to my gospel.

Romans 2:12, 16