Examining the Presidential Candidates

 

Introduction

It is most important for Christians to gain an understanding of the issues, the different parties’ positions on them, and what the Bible has to say about them.  It is also important to remember that we are voting to put people in office to make decisions on our behalf, and not just voting on issues and party platforms (there’s a reason our Framers set up a Republic and not a Democracy).  We need to be primarily concerned with our values and how they will be represented, but we also need to be concerned with who will be representing them.

As a Christian, I recognize Jesus as the ultimate and perfect leader.  When determining a list of characteristics that a leader should have, we should look to Christ as our example.  Christ was someone who led by serving.  He led with humility.  He was singular in his focus, knowing what his goal was and never veering from the path to accomplish that goal.  He was in continual communication with the Father and sought His guidance when he needed it.  He led not for his own fame or glory, but for the glory of the Father and the welfare of those he was leading.  He was motivated not by his own vanity, but by his desire to serve others.  When seeking a leader, we should look for someone who has these same characteristics.

Barack Obama

 

Barack Hussein Obama (D) was born in Hawaii, has degrees from Columbia University and Harvard Law School (where he was president of the Harvard Law Review) , served as a community organizer and civil rights lawyer in Chicago, and he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years.  He served three terms in the Illinois Senate before being elected as a US Senator from Illinois in 2004.  After four years in the Senate, he was elected as the 44^th President of the United States.

Record

If we take a look at Pres. Obama’s history, we will see that he has been incredibly consistent.  When he supports a position, he stays the course with that position, even if it is unpopular.  When he believes that he is doing the right thing, he is convicted enough to be unwavering in that conviction.  The most notable case is his steadfast belief that passing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is what was best for the American people, even though it was not a popular law with the American people.  He has continued to hold to this belief since it’s passing, even though it has hurt him politically.  The only instance I can recall where he has changed positions (likely for political gain) is on the issue of same-sex marriage.  While he believed that marriage should only be between one man and one woman during his first presidential campaign and during his first three years in office, he reversed his position on this issue and now supports the right for same-sex couples to marry.

Much has been made of President Obama blaming his predecessor for the economic climate we are in.  While it may not be fair to blame Pres. George W. Bush for all of the current problems (I believe that Pres. Clinton needs to shoulder much of the blame for repealing The Glass-Steagall Act), it is important to understand that the economic collapse did occur while he was in office.  The recession began in December 2007 and crashed in September 2008 (two months before Obama would be elected and four months before he would take office).  When Pres. Obama says that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, he's almost right (it's really the worst recession since the one that followed the decline of government spending after World War II).

When Obama took office in January 2009 our Gross Domestic Product had gone down two straight quarters (Q3 and Q4 in 2008).  It continued to fall (but at a smaller rate) during his first two quarters in office.  Then it began to grow starting in Q3 in 2009, and has grown every quarter since.   In fact, our GPD surpassed where it was in the fourth quarter of 2007 (the highest it had been in our nation’s history, and right before the recession began) during the final quarter of 2009.  Of those twelve quarters of growth, six were when the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress, and the other six are with a divided Congress.  Four of the top six quarters of growth happened when the Democrats had control, and only two of the top six quarters of growth have happened since the Republicans took control of the house.  In fact, all of the quarters under Democratic control fall in the top nine quarters for growth during the past twelve quarters.

Beginning in February 2008 the US economy began seeing negative job growth (losing more jobs than were being created).  This continued every month for 25 straight months.  Under Bush there were 12 months of job losses totaling 4,672,000 jobs (or 389,333 jobs per month).  During the first 14 months of the Obama presidency (I’m counting January 2009 for both Bush and Obama) there were a total of 5,051,000 jobs lost (or 360,768 jobs per month).  Since then the economy has seen positive job growth for 31 straight months, adding 4,726,000 new jobs, meaning that nearly every job that has been lost since Obama took office has been gained back, and we are halfway to regaining all of the jobs lost during the recession.  Also, unemployment has now dropped to the same rate that it was when Pres. Obama took office four years ago (and the fact that some in the Republican camp would want to deny the unemployment rate and spin it for political gain is disgusting and shows that they are more concerned with getting elected than with actually seeing people go back to work).

Yes, the recovery is happening slowly, and we all wish that it would be happening more quickly, but recovery almost always takes longer than collapse.  Perhaps had John McCain been President the past four years then things would be better right now, but we really have no way of knowing.  The fact is that the economy is and has been recovering.  GDP has risen to the point that it has surpassed where it was before the recession began.  Jobs have been created the past 30 months, recovering nearly every job lost while Obama has been in office and unemployment has dropped to the same rate it was when the President took office.  The fact that GDP is at an all-time high, corporate profits are at an all-time high, and the stock market has more than doubled since Obama took office shows me that companies are making money and the wealthy are investing, yet unemployment is remaining high, showing that companies don't feel the need to hire more workers while making more money with a smaller labor force.  Indeed the recovery is happening slowly, but we are recovering, and I believe that the policies which have led to this recovery can continue to work.

Religion

To be candid, I really struggled with whether or not to include an examination the candidate’s religious beliefs.  I decided to do so because it has been a prominent topic of discussion and is especially important for us to consider as Christians (especially because of rumors that Mr. Obama is a Muslin and because of Mr. Romney’s unique faith).  In all honestly, it makes me a bit uncomfortable to talk about their beliefs because it is not my place to judge the level of someone’s religious convictions, yet I still feel it is important to talk about.

There has been much debate over Mr. Obama’s religious beliefs.  Many believe that he is a secret Muslim because of his father and step-father’s past Muslim beliefs and the time he spent in Kenya.  However, there is very little evidence to support this claim, and if he is a Muslim, he’s a very poor one.  There are several myths that have been circulated to support the claim that Mr. Obama is a Muslim, and I will do my best to debunk a few here.

One popular myth is that the President has failed to declare a National Day of Prayer and instead has participated in a Muslim Day of Prayer at the Capital.  The truth is that he has declared a National Day of Prayer every year he’s been in office, served as the defendant in a suit challenging the constitutionality of the NDOP, and was in Pittsburgh when a group of Muslims organized an independent day of prayer on the Capital in 2009.  It is true, however, that he has not hosted a formal prayer event at the White House on the NDOP, as his predecessor did every year, but before that, there had only even been two White House NDOP events, once under President Regan and once under Pres. Bush.  (Source)

It has also been claimed that he attended a Muslim school as a child while living in Indonesia.  While it is true that he attended a predominantly Muslim school, he also attended a Catholic school there as well.  Another claim is that he was raised in the Muslim faith; however, as he writes in his 1995 book Dreams from My Father, his mother believed that “a working knowledge of the world’s great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education,” and that she exposed him to the beliefs and traditions of many religions, but didn’t endorse an adherence to any specific religion.

Mr. Obama was sworn in on the Bible, has never been seen praying toward Mecca, or expressed in any way that he is a Muslim.  The best arguments I’ve heard that he is a Muslim are arguments from silence (just because no one has ever seen him pray to Mecca five times a day doesn’t mean that he doesn’t do it secretly) and the fact that he is respectful of the religion of Islam.

Mr. Obama has stated numerous times that he is a Christian.  While those who raised him identified themselves as atheists or agnostics, Mr. Obama was raised with a great respect for all religions.  He has said that he accepted Christ as an adult and was baptized in the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for 20 years (although he did withdraw his membership in 2008 after controversial remarks made by the church’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, became public).  Some may argue that he was baptized and joined a church because of the political benefit of being a Christian; however he was baptized eight years before his political career began.  He has stated publicly that his Christian faith was his personal choice and that he has an understanding of the salvation that comes through faith in Christ.

Mitt Romney

Willard Mitt Romney (R) was born in 1947 in Michigan, has degrees from Brigham Young University and Harvard University, served as a Mormon missionary to France, was the head of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics, and was the founder and CEO of the private equity firm Bain Capital.  He began his political career in 1994 when he ran against Ted Kennedy for the US Senate, but was defeated.  He was later elected as the governor of Massachusetts in 2002, but did not seek a second term as he began a bid to be the Republican presidential nominee, a bid which he lost to John McCain.  In 2012 he won the Republican nomination for President.

Record

Mr. Romney has a history of holding one position on an issue, then changing to another position on that same issue when it is politically advantageous to do so.  On the issue of abortion he had stated while running for the US Senate and for governor of Massachusetts that, while he was personally pro-life, that he would fight to uphold Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose because he didn’t believe that it was the government’s place to impose his private religious beliefs on others..  Now he has said that he will appoint judges to the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe and that he would gladly sign legislation outlawing abortion.  He has stated in the past the he would not undo tough gun control laws and even signed an assault weapons ban into law while governor of Massachusetts.  He now opposes gun legislation, including laws that would ban assault weapons.  In fact, he joined the National Rifle Association in 2006 in order to garner support from gun owners and in an attempt to get an endorsement from the NRA in the 2008 presidential election season.  In terms of health care reform, Romney had said that he was in favor of an individual mandate and he believed that what he accomplished with health care reform in Massachusetts was a model for the nation.  Now he plans to repeal most of the reforms (including the individual mandate) passed in Obamacare, even though he believes that his incredibly similar plan in place in Massachusetts is a great plan and a model for the nation.

Mr. Romney's record of changing his position his very troubling to me (and these are only some of the major issues where his stance has changed).  I see three possible reasons why his stance on these issues has changed, and it is possible that any or all of these reasons have been the case for one issue or another.  First, it is entirely possible that his position has legitimately changed.  It's possible that his fundamental belief on an issue has shifted, and therefore his stance has changed with it.  Second, it's possible that his current view has always been his real view, but that he previously took a different stance because it was politically beneficial.  The third option is the opposite, in that the former view reflects his real feelings, and his new view is the one that is the most politically beneficial right now.  It is also entirely possible that on some issues he has no real conviction, and just always takes more most politically adventageous stance.  Whatever the reason, it should raise great concern that the stance he has taken whenever his stance has changed, has always been the one that was most politically expedient.

If we look at Mr. Romney’s record, we will see that he has been an incredibly successful businessman.  While there were companies that Bain Capital invested in that eventually closed, Bain invested in failing companies.  Bain Capital certainly saved and created more jobs than it eliminated.  It is a sad thing whenever jobs are lost, but not every company will be successful.

For me personally, looking at Mr. Romney’s record as the governor of Massachusetts is a better indicator of the type of president he will be than looking at his business record.  He was governor from 2003-2007, a time of economic growth and prosperity in our nation.  Under his predecessor Massachusetts had ranked 37^th in the nation in job creation.  During his time in office Massachusetts ranked 47^th in the nation in job creation.  However, he did move the state from being 50th in the nation in the year he took office, to being 28th the year he left office.  While the state did improve in job creation during his time in office, both his predecessor and successor had better overall records when it came to job creation, and both held the office during recessions, while Romney was in office during a time of economic growth.

Massachusetts lost manufacturing jobs at a rate almost twice the national average while Mr. Romney was governor.  When he took office unemployment in the state had been below the national average, but was higher than the national average by the end of his term.  Even though he promised not to raise taxes, the AP reported in 2005 that he raised taxes and fees affecting the middle class and costing tax payers nearly $75 million, while benefiting nearly 300 of the state’s wealthiest residents (I had this article open on my computer at one point, but closed the window before inserting this citation.  I almost removed this sentence because I don't have the citation, but I'm confident that I'll be able to find the article again, and will include the link once I do).  Mitt Romney added $2.6 billion in debt, increasing the state’s debt by 16% while he was in office.  Massachusetts had the highest amount of debt per person of any state when he left office.  State spending also increased by an average of 6.5% per year (1.1% when adjusted for inflation) while he was governor and the state had a $1 billion budget deficit when he left office.

As a candidate who has promised to cut taxes, reduce the deficit, balance the budget, and put people back to work, his record as the governor of Massachusetts doesn’t bear out that he will be able to do that.  Given the fact that he has held multiple positions on many issues during his political career and his lack-luster record while serving as the governor of Massachusetts, I have little faith in him to lead this country in the right direction and to help continue righting this economy and bring increased and more rapid growth.

Religion

Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and more specifically, he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the largest denomination within the Mormon religion, abbreviated LDS).  He has been very active in his church, embarking on the traditional two year missionary journey that Mormons take before beginning college (he did his in France), holding the post of stake president, and bishop, the highest priestly office within the Mormon Church.  Understanding this unique religion is important, especially in a discussion of the relationship between religion and politics.

The Mormon religion was founded in New York State in the 1820's by Joseph Smith.  Smith is said to have had an encounter with an angel named Moroni, who told Smith that God was displeased with how far Christianity had veered from what He had originally intended.  The angel then directed Smith to a series of golden tablets written in a secret language that chronicled the history of God’s people in North American and contained teachings and prophecy, which Smith was allowed to translate.  Smith then dictated what he had translated, and this dictation was written down and recorded as The Book of Mormon.  The basis for the founding of the church was that no Christian denominations accurately reflected what God intended for His people, and that God was going to use Smith as His prophet to restore the Christian faith to the way God created it to be.  This is why Mormonism is considered a sort of restored Christian primitivism.

I don’t have the space here to discuss all of the finer points of the Mormon religion, it’s relationship to Christianity, or its history, so I will focus on a few points I find relevant for Christians to know and consider in this election.

First, it must be said that while Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, they are not part of orthodox Christianity, and can best be described as a Christian cult (a cult here being defined as a group within a larger religious context that hold beliefs different than orthodox beliefs that distinguish them from the larger body, different from denominations which agree on the core beliefs (Nicaea), and differ in practice and on minor points of theology).  It is also important to understand that Mormons believe they are the only true Christian denomination, which makes Mormonism and orthodox Christianity (Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy) mutually exclusive.

It is widely known that the Mormon faith used to practice plural marriage (or polygamy), but that the practice is now largely a relic.  The practice has been formally banned by the LDS church since 1890, so fundamentalists within the Mormon faith have continued to practice plural marriage.  The practice likely began in secret among members of the church very early in its existence (possibly beginning in the early 1830’s), and while Joseph Smith denied and condemned the practice, there is much evidence that he had multiples wives.  The practice became part of official church doctrine in 1876, after being publicly announced in 1852.  The practice was banned when the US government made it illegal (a decision upheld by the Supreme Court) and dis-incorporated the Mormon Church (removing them as a legal religion).  Once the church officially banned the practice in 1890, they were reinstated by the US government.  The Supreme Court ruled that while the government cannot interfere with religious belief, they may pass laws which interfere with practices.  While Mitt Romney obviously does not support the idea of polygamy, as the LDS church has banned it for well over 100 years, his great-grandfather was a polygamist, and his family moved to Mexico as part of a Mormon colony, in part because of the US government’s prohibition of polygamy.

In the Mormon religion, God refers only to the Father, because they believe in a Godhead, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and distinct individual gods.  Unlike the orthodox Christian view of the Trinity where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate and unique personalities of one entity, the Mormon view sees the three parts of the Godhead as distinctly unique individuals that, while physically separate, are unified in will and purpose.  They also believe that both the Father and the Son have perfect physical bodies and that the Father is the head, presiding over the Son and Spirit, unlike Christian theology which states that all three members of the Trinity and co-equal.  It is also their belief that adherents to the Mormon faith will become co-heirs with Christ, making them gods as well, as they will inherit all that the Father gives.  According to Mormon doctrine, God the Father was once a mortal man who was the first to complete the process of becoming an exalted being.

Mormons also believe in American exceptionalism, and that the American Constitution was inspired by God.  Along with this, they believe that Jesus appeared to the indigenous people of American after his resurrection, and that the Garden of Eden was in North America and that the New Jerusalem will be in Missouri.

Conclusion

A presidential candidate’s religious beliefs are important, especially for Christians, as we believe that our religious beliefs inform every aspect of our political views.  However, that does not mean that a Christian cannot vote for a Mormon (or a Muslim, or an atheist, etc.).  As my father commented to me recently, being a Christian doesn’t mean that some is the best choice to hold public office, and not being a Christian doesn’t mean they aren’t the best choice.  While a candidate’s religious beliefs are important, I believe that it’s more important for a Christian to look at the candidate’s character, their leadership ability, and how well they fit the model leader we find in Jesus.  It is also important that we look at the candidate’s stance on the issues and how those stances align with Biblical teaching on those issues.  Outside of Jesus himself stepping down out of heaven to run for office, I don’t believe I will ever see a candidate that I will agree with or support 100%.  This leaves me with the choice to not participate in the process and abstain from voting, or choose the candidate that best represents my Christian beliefs and vote for that person.  Since I believe that Christians should participate in the American political process as informed and conscientious voters, I must choose the candidate that I feel best represents my Christian beliefs.  Given the choice between these two major candidates, it is my belief that Barack Obama is that candidate.

Politics and Religion: an Uneasy Marriage

 

Introduction

I’ve always felt a bit uneasy about the relationship between religion and politics.  That’s probably because I’ve never been sure what the relationship between the two should be.  It is evident in this country that religion and politics mix.  Often in good ways, at other times in bad ways.  Regardless of what the relationship should be it is clear that our nation has made an uncomfortable marriage of faith and government.

What role should religion play in government?

I think that there are three primary views people hold about what the relationship between religion and politics should be.

1. Religion shouldn’t play a role in politics.  There is a very small part of me that feels this way.  In a nation with a secular government that believes in the separation of church and state, as our nation does, I feel that everyone, not just Christians, should be guaranteed the freedom to worship as they please and feel comfortable to do so.  I also feel uncomfortable when I hear a politician invoke God because usually it seems that most use God as a political tool, with little actual evidence of faith to back it up.

Even if people believe that religion shouldn’t play any role in politics, there’s no way to completely separate the two.  Any person who regularly practices a religion will be impacted by their religious beliefs.  Their religion will help to shape their worldview and therefore indirectly impact their political convictions.

2. Religion should affect a person’s personal political convictions, but shouldn’t be the only (or even primary) influence on our political leanings.  This is probably the most commonly held view in American politics.  People want to see their religious beliefs enacted into law, but they also believe that there’s a limit.  People who hold to this view know that it’s impractical to legislate morality completely.  Also, if they support the separation of church and state they know that imposing their religious convictions through law runs a thin line, because it could infringe upon the religious convictions of others.

3. Religion should be the primary and only driving force behind political decision making.  This is the extreme at the other end of the spectrum and the opposite of the first view.  Under this view, a person who is religious, should seek to discover their religion’s teachings on various issues and should vote to see those teachings written into law and played out in official government policies.  Many Christians feel this way.  The problem with this again lies with the fact that many of these Christians generally also support the separation of church in state.  They simultaneously don’t want the government to infringe on their religious beliefs, while desiring to see their beliefs enacted into laws for everyone.

What does the Bible say about politics?

The Bible isn’t terribly clear about what role our Christian faith should play in politics.  This is mainly because the Bible knows nothing of democracy.  The Bible only knows two forms of government: theocracy and monarchy.  From the time when God established a relationship with His people on earth through Abraham until the time of the first king of Israel, the Hebrew people were governed by God himself.  God sent prophets to be His voice box, set up a priestly class to lead the people in their religious practices and in their daily lives, established judges to be prophetic military leaders and purveyors of justice, and gave us His law to be followed.  Because of our sin nature, the people of God rarely did a good job of following their King (God himself) or obeying His laws.  This often led to the Hebrew people being conquered or led away into exile.

Eventually the Hebrew people cried out to God and asked Him to give them a king so that they might be like the other nations around them.  God warned the people (through the prophet Samuel) of the dangers of having an earthly king.  He was also aware that the people of Israel had rejected God Himself as their king.  Still, the people did not listen to the warnings and so God gave them a king.  Saul was chosen as the first king, and while he had his moments, he was also deeply flawed and all the things God warned of happened.  He was then succeeded by David, who was a man after God’s own heart, and then David’s son Solomon, who was a man who sought wisdom above all else.  While both were great and godly kings (David was a warrior-king and Solomon was a great diplomat), both suffered from severe moral failures (David slept with a married woman and had her husband killed, and Solomon had nearly 1,000 wives).  After Solomon’s reign ended Israel was lead by a series of immoral and egotistical kings who strayed from God’s leadership and sough only earthly rewards (with a few notable, yet brief, exceptions).

Christ himself remained incredibly politically neutral.  The people of Israel were looking for a political messiah who would bring salvation in the form of freeing the Hebrew people from the rule of the Roman government.  Instead, they got a messiah who saved them from themselves and who seemed incredibly uninterested in politics.  Jesus was only asked about politics once, and it had to do with paying taxes to the civil authority, and Jesus said that we need to submit and pay the taxes that we owe.  Outside of this instance, Jesus remained surprisingly quiet on politics (which perhaps is an indication as to how Christians should be when it comes to politics).

Paul gives perhaps the most direct instruction as to how Christians should act when it comes to politics.  In Romans we are told that we must “submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”  It would do us well to remember that the “authorities that exist have been established by God.”  While this doesn’t mean that all earthly authorities will be godly (and indeed, all will sin and make poor decisions) it does mean that all have been established in God’s will and we as Christians need to respect them.  It also means that if our chosen candidate loses that American didn’t make the wrong choice or go against God’s will (indeed, as a believer in free will, I’m more inclined to believe that both choices fall within God’s will and it is up to us to decide).  Paul also warns that anyone who rebels against the ruling authorities is rebelling against God who established those authorities and that the authorities are God’s servants.  Again, we need to respect the leadership in elected office, and understand that they have been established by God.

Paul also tells us to pray for all those inauthority.  This means all leaders.  Not just our American leaders or our preferred candidate.  As Christians, we should never pray for our candidate to win, but rather we should ask God to guide us in making our decision and pray that whoever is elected will seek to always follow God’s will.

The dangers of mixing religion and politics

The danger with allowing our religious beliefs to influence our politics is that the influence can also go the other way where our politics will influence our religious convictions.  One of the biggest problems with being an American Christian is the word order.  Too many Christians identify themselves as being Americans first and Christians second.  They allow their patriotism and political leanings to affect their Christian convictions.  They allow their party to dictate to them what is right and wrong and true, instead of leaning on scripture to dictate to them what is right and wrong and true.

This year I have seen two flyers designed for churches to pride to their members to help them decide who they should vote for as Christians.  While I’m not opposed to a pastor helping his/her congregation understand the important issues and the Biblical stance on those issues, I don’t believe that it’s their place to dictate to their congregants who they should vote for.  Each person must take responsibility to become informed and make a conscientious decision based on what scripture has to say and where the candidates stand.  I had high hopes that these flyers would truly be informative and unbiased, as their “non-partisan” label claimed.  Unfortunately, both were clear endorsements of Mr. Romney.  Both simply selected a few issues and stated whether each candidate supported or opposed, with the clear intent of leading Christians to believe that Mr. Romney is the only correct choice for a Christian.

Here are the issues listed:

Issues listed on both flyers

• Repeal of Obamacare 
• Same sex marriage 
• Taxpayer funding of abortion 
• Defense of marriage act 
• Mandated contraceptive coverage

Items listed on only one flyer

• Overturn Roe v. Wade 
• Government funding of Planned Parenthood  
• Ban on human cloning  
• Parental choice in education  
• Banning lawsuits against gun companies in cases of gun violence  
• Repeal of Estate Tax  
• 20% Tax Cut Across the Board  
• Balanced Budget Amendment  
• Cutting Medicare $716 Billion  
• Cap and Trade Tax

You can view the flyers here and here.

Source: Faith and Freedom Coalition, Americans of Faith, and Ohio Christian Alliance.

While I could spend a lot of time talking about how ridiculous some of these points are I will only make a few observations.  These are only some of the issues relevant in this election, and I would argue that some are incredibly minor issues, while other major issues were left off.  The phrasing of the issues and the issues that were selected were clearly designed to point people to vote for Mitt Romney.  There was no explanation of any of the issues or the candidate’s stance on them, only whether they supported or opposed it.  There was also no explanation about what the Biblical stance was on any of these issues.  I would have no issue with a church providing it's members with a comprehensive list of major issues, a description of the Biblical stance on those issues (supported by scripture), and an accurate depiction of each candidate's/party's stance on those issues.  However, instead of being helpful tools for Christian voters attempting to make an informed decision, these flyers are little more than uninformative propaganda that have absolutely no place in a church.

One of the most egregious instances I’ve ever seen of a Christian leader allowing his political preference to dictate his religious convictions happened this past week when Rev. Billie Graham endorsed Mitt Romney for president.  Normally there wouldn’t be anything particularly significant or noteworthy about this, except that when he did so, his ministry removed the Mormon faith (the faith of Mitt Romney) from its list of cults.  While I do not know the reason why it was removed, I can make the assumption based on the timing that it was because Rev. Graham had chosen to endorse Mr. Romney because he was the Republican nominee, and he couldn’t, in good conscience, endorse someone to be the standard bearer of Christian morality in American government if he openly believed that person to be a member of a cult.  I doubt the he suddenly came to the conclusion that Mormonism is a legitimate religion or part of Orthodox Christianity (as they claim to be Christians).  It is clear to me that he allowed his political beliefs to supersede his religious convictions, and that is a disappointing thing to see from such a stalwart of the faith during the past century.

Conclusion

As Christian, we need to remember that we must not be swayed by our world, but that we must seek to create change within our world.  I wasn’t raised to be a Democrat or a Republican.  I was raised to be a follower of Christ, who looks first to scripture, then seeks to make an informed decision.  We all need to look to scripture as our ultimate authority.  We have a responsibility as Christians to become informed and make our decision based on where the candidates stand in relationship to what scripture teaches.  We must be very careful not to let our political leanings influence our theology.

My Political Background

Introduction

Recently my dad commented to me, “I don’t know where you and your sister, but you especially, got your interest and concern for politics from.”  I honestly don’t know either.  Perhaps it is because my mom used to have the news on when we were getting ready for school every morning.  Maybe it’s because I enjoy a good debate.  Perhaps it is merely because as a Christian I believe that I have a responsibility to engage with the culture, be a participant in the world I live in, and seek to change the world through the saving gospel message of Jesus Christ.

My Diverse and Apolitical Upbringing

Politics was rarely a topic of discussion around the dinner table in my house growing up.  It wasn’t that politics was a taboo subject, or something we believed was a matter of private conviction and therefore not appropriate dinner time banter, but it just wasn’t something of great importance that anyone in my family felt the need to discuss.

Usually I would ask who my parents and grandparents were voting for in presidential elections, and usually they would tell me.  Again, not much discussion of issues or why my family members were voting the way they were, just simply a statement of fact as to which hole they would punch in the ballot come November.

I believe that it’s important to explain the political worldview in which I was raised to give context for my current views.  However, I didn’t ask any of my family member’s permission to talk about their voting history, so I will attempt to give some explanation, without revealing any personal details.  I know that at least one of my parents has voted for both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates in my lifetime and I believe the other one has primarily (if not exclusively) voted Republican.  One set of grandparents have voted for Republican and Democratic candidates, as well as a third party candidate in my lifetime.  My paternal grandmother would have no problem with me telling everyone (and would be happy that I am doing so) that she was a lifelong Democrat who never veered from the party line.

I wasn't raised to be a Republican or a Democrat.  I was raised to be a follower of Christ.  When it came to politics I was taught to look first to scripture and let the Spirit be my guide as I seek the proper course to take.  My next responsibility is to become informed.  To research the candidates and the party's platforms, and find out who the best person and ideas are, as they relate to scripture.  Too many people are raised on one side of the aisle or the other and only become informed so as to support their point of view, instead of letting their stance be determined by the facts.  I hope that my upbringing and an explanation of my voting history will show that I have always sought to be well informed and to let scripture and the facts guide my decisions, instead of the other way around.

My Voting History

I first became interested in politics in 1992 when George H. W. Bush (R) was running for reelection against Bill Clinton (D) and Ross Perot (I).  I was in first grade at the time, and my class ran a mock election for our school that November.  Our teacher asked us to break into three groups, one for each candidate, joining the one for the candidate we supported.  I joined the Bill Clinton group, because I had heard that he had wanted to become president since he was in the first grade, and I was in the first grade (a great reason to support a candidate, I know).  I became Clinton’s campaign manager at my school, and led my group in promoting the Arkansas governor in my school for our nation’s highest office.  On Election Day we staged an election in our school, and unfortunately for me, Mr. Bush was reelected.  While I was disappointed with the loss at school, I was excited the next morning when I learned that my candidate had won the actual election.  In 1996 I recall supporting Mr. Clinton again, though I still wasn’t really interested in presidential politics in terms of issues at the time.

My next moment of political involvement came while I was in the sixth grade when I wrote a multi-page letter to my state senator and state representative outlining why I believed the Ohio Proficiency Test (now called the Ohio Graduation Test) was unfair, unreliable, and why it should be replaced as a method of assessing how students were learning and meeting standards across the state.  I actually received a letter back from Jim Jordan, my state representative.  While he dismissed all of my reasons and ideas for change, he was very polite and it was nice to receive a response.

In 2000 I was definitely a George W. Bush (R) supporter, and was pleased both to see that Ohio had voted for him and that he ended up being the eventual president (ironic that I supported the son of the president I “campaigned” against in 1992 instead of the VP of the man I tried to elect).  I turned 18 two months before the election in 2004, and was excited to vote for the first time.  I voted for George W. Bush, and was a very strong supporter.  I voted a basically straight Republican ticket that year with one exception.  As a college student outside of Chicago, I registered in Illinois, and I voted for Barack Obama (D) for Senate.

By the time the 2008 election rolled around I had become pretty disappointed with where the Bush presidency had ended, but this did not mean that I had decided not to vote for a Republican again.  When the Iowa Caucuses had ended I was far more excited to see that Mike Huckabee had won the Republican Caucus than I was to see that Mr. Obama had won the Democratic Caucus.  As the campaign trudged on and as it became clear who the two nominees would be, I remained undecided.  I was split pretty evenly about which candidate I agreed with on various issues.  It wasn’t until about a week before Election Day that I made up my mind.  What made my decision was that I decided that I agreed with Mr. Obama on more of the issues that I felt were most important at the time (namely the economy).  That same year, though, I still voted a primarily Republican ticket.  Outside of the President, I’m not sure I voted for a single other Democrat.

Since 2008, I have continued to vote primarily Republican in most elections.  I have voted for Democrats when I felt that they were the best candidate or when they were the incumbent and I felt that they had done a good job and felt no need for a change.  I did vote to reelect Ted Strickland (D) for governor (mainly because at that point I would have rather had the devil I knew over the devil I didn’t), but I also believe that Gov. John Kasich (R) has done a very good job as our governor and I am likely to vote for him in the next Ohio gubernatorial election.

Since I turned 18, I have probably voted for Republican candidates 75% of the time, if not more.  There was even a time where I identified myself as a Republican.  Ever since the 2004 election I’ve identified myself as an independent because I realized that I don’t completely agree with either party, and if I don’t (and if I don’t plan on voting a straight party ticket) then I don’t feel I can identify myself as a member of one party over the other.  At this point though, I have moved from being a right leaning moderate to being a left leaning moderate.

Conclusion

Over the next few days I’ll explain why I have moved to the left (or rather, why I believe the left has come more in line with my religious convictions since I don't believe that my convictions haven’t changed much).  I hope that this post has provided some context for my current views, and I look forward to exploring these important issues in more detail.  I invite you to leave feedback here or on Facebook (although I’d prefer you leave your feedback here).

I encourage open and meaningful debate, and will not edit anyone’s posts because their opinion is different than mine, but if the conversation becomes too negative or if people begin making person attacks, outlandish statements, or simply saying things that are false then I will deleted your posts.  Please remain civil and respectful.  I’d also appreciate it if we keep the conversation to the topic of the post that day, and I’ve outlined the schedule of what I will be posting about in my introduction post.

Thanks so much for taking the time to read these blogs and I am incredibly grateful to everyone who is willing to engaging with me in this process.  I am both honored and humbled.