When a Symbol is Changed: Tragedy on Boston

I was saddened today when I heard the news that two bombs had exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon at a point in the race when this area was the most crowded.  I was even more saddened later when I heard that three people had passed away and nearly 80 had been treated for injuries.  When I heard the news I immediately thought of the World Trade Center bombing in New York in the 1993, the federal building bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995, and the bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympics.  I also thought of the scenes in Aurora and Newtown from the past year.  The images that flashed across the screen seemed more like a scene from Batman than actual reality.  It seems that as soon as the news stops their daily conversation about the last major tragedy another one happens.

I mourn at the loss of life.  I feel empathy for those who were affected.  My heart breaks for those who were harmed, mentally or physically, and my mind wonder why an event like this happens.  I wonder how a person could be so evil as to plan and carry out an event like this.  I wonder what kind of hate has to permeate a person's heart in order for them to carry out mass murder.  My mind was filled with questions, many of which I will never know the answer to.  I can't explain what leads a person to do something like this, but I know what could have saved them.  I don't know what to say to those who mourn, but I know they will be comforted (Matthew 5:4). 

The sight of the explosion struck me in a particular way.  Whoever carried out this bombing chose a scene of jubilation and celebration as the scene for fear and terror.  A finish line is a symbol of accomplishment and joy, and today it was turned into one of confusion and panic.  It was clear to me that the person (or persons) who did this did so to take a positive symbol and turn it into a negative one.  As I contemplated this I couldn't help but think of the crucifixion of Jesus.  In the first century the cross was a symbol of pain and suffering.  Those who passed by Golgotha and saw men being crucified would have had feelings of disdain and disgust.  Jesus, however, didn't let the symbolism of the cross define him.  Through his resurrection, he defined what the cross meant.  After his resurrection people no longer looked at crosses with fear and no longer thought of death.  Now they look at the cross and have joy, being reassured of their salvation.

Just as Jesus took the cross, this negative symbol, and turned it into a symbol of salvation, I know that he can do the same with this event today.  Right now the scene is one of fear, death, and injury, but in time it will be redeemed and will again become a scene of victory and triumph.

There will be a lot of discussion in the next few days about why tragedies like these happen.  People will blame violent movies, the eroding of our educational system, the breakdown of the family, angry music, gay marriage, a lack of prayer in school, and on and on and on.  All of these explanations will miss the point, as the true cause of the problem will never be discussed.  These possible causes are merely symptoms of the real sickness: sin.  It is the sin within us that leads people to carry out such violent actions.  It is important to remember that we all sin and are in need of a savior.  It is because of this imperfection that God sent his perfect son to become perfection for us.  It is only Him who can save a hardened heart.

I know that good will come from this tragedy.  I know that God will work in and through this horrible experience.  I also know that we as Christians have the message that can bring comfort to those who hurt, clarity to those who question, and salvation for those that need saving.  May we never miss an opportunity to share the good news of Jesus with those who need it.

An Exploration of the “Christian” Issues: Abortion and Gay Marriage

Introduction

To be honest, saying that this post is about the “Christian” issues is a bit tongue-in-cheek.  I believe that all issues are (or ought to be) Christian issues.  I believe that how our government handles its finances, cares for the poor, or interacts with other nations are moral issues that Christians need to be just as concerned with when it comes to choosing who to vote for as abortion and gay marriage.  The issues of abortion and gay marriage have become the issues that Christians seem most concerned with, and as such, I felt that that needed a post of their own, separate from my exploration of all of the issues.  This does not mean that I think these issues are any more important than any others, just that they needed special attention in this series.

Abortion

I am pro-life.  I believe that abortion should be illegal because I believe that it is murder and should be treated and prosecuted as such.  Before I explain my stance on abortion I think we need to take a brief look at the history of abortion legislation in America.

The first law criminalizing abortion was implemented in Connecticut in 1821.  By 1900 every state had some anti-abortion law in place.  These laws varied in their scope and punishments, and there has never been a national ban on abortion.  In 1970 Norma McCorvey (using the pseudonym Jane Roe) filed suit against Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade (representing the State of Texas) for their law prohibiting elective abortion (Texas allowed abortions in the case of rape and incest).  Eventually the case was heard by the US Supreme Court, who decided in Roe’s favor by a 7-2 vote, citing a woman’s right to privacy and deciding that the right to have an abortion is a fundamental right under the Constitution.  This decision essentially made abortion legal in the US, though many states passed laws regulating it, though none could outlaw the practice.

Since Roe v Wade, there have been many attempts to ban abortion, but with little success.  In 1995 and 1996 Congress passed a national ban on abortion, but Pres. Clinton vetoed the law, and while the House overrode the veto, the Senate failed to do so.  Another ban was passed in1997-98, again Pres. Clinton vetoed it, and again the House overrode the veto while the Senate failed to do so.  In 2003 Congresses passed a federal ban on Partial Birth Abortions (a gruesome form of late-term abortions) and Pres. George W. Bush signed it into law.  After multiple suits the Supreme Court declared the law Constitutional in 2007.  This is the first and only federal ban on any type of abortion.

In some ways I find it odd that the two parties have come down on the sides of the abortion issues that they have.  The Republican Party is the party of personal responsibility, individual liberty, and smaller government, yet they want to outlaw abortion or force women who want abortions to have evasive trans-vaginal ultrasounds first.  On the other side the Democrats are the party of regulation and bigger government, yet they don’t want the government involved in a woman’s reproductive choices.

For me, the most fundamental aspect of the discussion over abortion is the question of when life begins.  This was one of the fundamental questions for the Supreme Court when they were deciding on Roe v. Wade.  The Court determined that a fetus was viable roughly after the first trimester, so their ruling really only affected made abortions legal before that point in a pregnancy.  As a Christian it is my belief that life begins at conception.  I believe that there’s Biblical support for this.  When God first spoke to Jeremiah He told him that He knew him even before he had been formed in his mother’s womb.  When Mary was pregnant with Jesus and she went to visit her cousin Elizabeth, who was also pregnant with her son John, Elizabeth told Mary that the child inside her leaped with joy at her presence, showing that the child inside of her had an awareness of who Mary was.

Most Christians agree that life begins at conception.  VP Joe Biden even agreed with that view (held by the Catholic Church, of which he is a member), yet some still do not believe that aborting a fetus should be illegal.  In the Vice Presidential Debate, Joe Biden gave as good of an answer on this issue as a pro-choice Christian could give.  He said that he accepts the Catholic Church’s doctrine on life beginning at conception, but that he also feels that it’s not the government’s place to enforce his religion’s belief on this issue on others.  This is a very good sounding argument, and one I might be inclined to agree with myself.  However, I cannot accept the idea that if life begins at conception, then it’s not the government’s place to block abortions.  If I believe that life begins at conception then I have to believe that aborting a fetus is murder.  If I believe that abortion is murder then I believe that it must be persecuted as such.  While it sounds nice for the Vice President to say that he doesn’t feel the government should enforce his religious belief on abortion on all people, it wouldn’t make sense for him to say the same about his religious beliefs about murder.  Now, I do understand that there is a difference here, because murder is universally accepted as being immoral, while life beginning at conception is not a universal view.  However, for anyone that believes that life begins at conception they must also logically support laws outlawing abortion as murder.

I certainly understand why people believe that this is an issue of women’s rights.  I also understand why people believe that a woman should have the right to make decisions about her reproductive health.  However, I believe that once a woman is pregnant, she has already made a decision about her reproductive health (I want to be clear here that I am not talking about pregnancies that are the result of rape).  While I understand that there are times when contraception fails, people need to understand that is a possibility and be prepared to accept the consequences if that occurs.  When I get in my car I have the expectation that it will work correctly and that I will be safe, but I also have to be willing to accept the consequences if something doesn’t work correctly.  I know that this is a poor analogy, and for that I apologize, but I just do not understand why people feel that they have the right to end a life because they view it as a negative consequence of a decision that they made, knowing full well that sex often leads to pregnancy.

I honestly go back and forth on whether or not there should be exceptions for rape, incest, and for the life of the mother.  I want to make it very clear that all of these instances are incomprehensible, and are horrible circumstances.  I also want to be clear that I find it unimaginable that Republican candidates would say things like legitimate rape doesn’t result in pregnancy, pregnancies resulting from rape are what God intended, that rape is just another method of conception, or when they refer to it as “the rape thing.”  Statements like these are hurtful, and further than that they are wrong.  God never intends that rape would be the way that a child is conceived.  When a woman is raped it is always a horrible thing, and if she gets pregnant as a result of that rape, it makes the situation even worse for her.  However, if I also believe that life begins at conception and that aborting a fetus is murder, then I must hold this belief regardless of how the child was conceived.

I believe that abortion is murder, that murder is a sin, and that murder should be illegal.  However, I also understand from scripture that there is a difference between murder and killing, and that there are times when killing is justified and isn’t considered murder (in war, for instance).  I don’t know if aborting a fetus when it is the result of rape or incest would be considered killing and not murder (this is an issue out of my pay grade), but I’m inclined to think that it would be.  For this reason, I current support measures that would make exceptions allowing abortion in instances of rape and incest.  On a more personal note, I find allowing abortion in these instances to be more compassionate to the victims of these unthinkable acts than forcing them to bear the child to term.  In the case where the mother’s life is threatened, it becomes an issue of whose life is more valuable, because it becomes a choice of one life over another.  As difficult as this sounds, in most cases, the life of the mother would be more important to save because of other children she may have that need cared for.

I still have questions on this issue though.  What defines rape?  Is statutory rape considered rape that would allow for an abortion?  Does a woman need to go to the hospital and have a rape kit done or file a police report in order to have an abortion?  Is a woman’s word good enough, or does the court or a doctor need to decide if she was raped?  Is non-consensual sex within a marriage considered rape, and of so, does a pregnancy that results from this qualify for an abortion?  These are questions about this important issue that I feel need to be addressed.

Another question I wonder about when it comes to abortion has to do with the Christian idea of the "age of accountability."  It is universally agreed upon within Christendom that it a baby is aborted, miscarried, or still-born, or if a baby dies in infancy, that they are covered  y God's grace and go to heaven because they never sinned and never had to opportunity to accept Christ.  This has led to the idea in much of Christianity that there is an age of accountability, a point where children become accountable for their actions and are capable of accepting Christ.  This belief states that if a child dies before this age that they are not held accountable for their sins and will go to heaven regardless of whether they accepted Christ.  Others argue that God knows whether a child whose life ends too soon would have become a Christian had they lived longer, and they are saved or not based on that special knowledge.  Christian views on when the age of accountability is range anywhere from as young as age two to as old as age twelve.  The Mormon faith officially recognizes age eight as the age of accountability.  I am going to sound like a heretic for a moment, but please bear with me, because I feel that I must discuss this issue to it's logical end (anyone familiar with Glenn Beck will be familiar with doing this).  If children are not accountable until they reach a certain age, and therefore are guaranteed to go to heaven if they die before reaching that age, then doesn't abortion become an act of mercy?  Wouldn't ending a child's life before that age ensure their entry into heaven and avoid the possibility that they might reject the gospel and go to hell, and wouldn't that make abortion actually a good thing?  The problem here is that the Bible is mute on the issue of an age of accountability and I'm not a wise enough theologian and know whether it exists or not.  I trust that if a child dies before it had the ability to sin or accept Christ then it will go to heaven, and that somehow a young child who knows the difference between right and wrong will be saved by whatever level of faith they are capable of at that age.

Clearly I am pro-life and believe that there should be a federal ban on all abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk.  However, I have questions about the Republican Party’s approach to abortion, or even how seriously they want to outlaw abortion.  This has been the primary issues for Republican campaigns ever since Roe V. Wade, and if abortion were outlawed, the Party would now need a new issue to run on.  This would drastically change the Republican Party going forward.  Because of this, I question how serious the Republican Party is about actually outlawing abortion.  When Pres. George W. Bush was in office he had a cooperative (read: Republican) Congress from 2003-2007, and they only passed a ban on partial birth abortion.  Even when Clinton was in office Congress twice passed a ban on abortion and nearly overrode the president’s veto of the law both times.  If there was ever an opportunity to pass a federal ban on all abortion, that was their chance.  Perhaps they didn’t do it because they knew that it wouldn’t hold up in the Supreme Court, but I think part of it may be that of it did, the Party would need to find a new cause to define them.  Right now the Republican party as a whole seems more anti-abortion than they have ever been, yet they have nominated a person for the presidency who until he began running for president didn’t believe that it wasn't the government’s place to outlaw abortion and was supportive of upholding Roe v. Wade.

I also think that a pro-life stance needs to be all-encompassing, and not just be an anti-abortion stance.  If we are going to outlaw abortion, then other things need to happen along with that.  We need to make the adoption process easier, faster, and cheaper in this country, so that the children that would have been aborted who now go up for adoption can be adopted by families more easily and at less expense to them.  Along with this, we would need to encourage people to adopt more than they do now, and personally I believe that those who are pro-life should be more actively involved in adoption.  We also need to make health care for pregnant women less expensive or even free.  For many women abortion is a more financially viable option than carrying a child to term, giving birth, and putting the child up for adoption.  If we outlaw abortion, then I feel that our government needs to make it easier and cheaper for women to receive the healthcare they need during their pregnancies.  I also believe that we need to be a better job of educating people about birth control and making contraception more easily accessible and less expensive or even free.  Studies have proven that abstinence-only education is not effective in preventing premarital sex, and that access to contraception does not increase a person’s likelihood to have premarital sex.  However, free and easy access to contraception would likely decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies.

On the other side of the issue, there are some questions that never seem to be asked of those who are pro-choice, that I would like to see answered.  If someone believes that life begins at conception (especially a Christian) then I want to know if they believe that ending that life before birth is murder.  If they believe that it isn’t, I want to know why not, and if they do then I want to know why they don’t think it should be prosecuted as such.  If someone doesn’t believe that life begins at conception, I want to know when they do believe it begins, and if abortions should be allowed after that point.  I want to know if people support laws that allow a teenage girl’s right to have an abortion without need parental consent or even parental notification.  I want to know if they consider pro-choice laws to be racist, since nearly 60% of all abortions in the US are performed on minorities, when minorities make up only about 25% of the population.  I also want to know what makes abortion a tragic choice (as many pro-choice people like to say) if it isn’t morally wrong to have an abortion.

There is no question that I am pro-life and that I believe that the government should ban abortion (except in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk), and if this were the only issue that was important to me then there’s no question that I would vote a Republican ticket.  This is indeed the most difficult issue for me when deciding to vote for a Democrat.  However, this is not the only issue, so it cannot be the only issue that determines my vote.

Gay Marriage

Marriage is a strictly religious institution.  It was created in the beginning by the Creator when Adam was unable to find a suitable companion from among the animals, so God created for him woman to be his companion, blessing them and commanding them to be fruitful and fill the earth.  When I think about the word marriage, I consider it to be a religious term, and as such, it is only God, and not the government, that can define it.

The Bible is very clear that marriage is an institution which is reserved for one man and one woman.  Whenever homosexuality is mentioned in scripture (and honestly, it isn’t mentioned much) it is always very clearly defined as being a sin (it's mentioned in Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Judges 19:22-23, Romans 1:24-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).  While the Bible never explicitly says that two people of the same sex cannot marry, it doesn’t need to.  Homosexuality is clearly a sin in scripture, so there’s no need to explain that homosexual marriage would be prohibited.  It was so unthinkable that two people of the same sex would seek a marriage that it didn’t need to be directly addressed.

My biggest issue with the government possibly redefining marriage and allowing same-sex couples to marry is less about letting gay couples get married, and is more about the government redefining what I see as a strictly religious term.  The real issue here is that the government has co-opted a religious term to mean something different than what it really means.

When the government refers to marriage, it is actually talking about a civil union.  The religious institution of marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God, to live and work together and to love one another until they are separated by death.  The governmental institution of marriage is a contract between a man, a woman, and the government, that allows them to jointly file their taxes and provides them with legal benefits, like hospital visitation, insurance benefits, and tax breaks.  This is why I think that the government needs to stop using the term marriage all together and start calling all legal marriages civil unions.  If two people go before a justice of the peace and are united, and their covenant is not made between themselves and with God, then they are not involved in a marriage (from a Judeo-Christian view of marriage).

In many ways, I wish that the US government would adopt a system similar to that in Mexico.  In Mexico, only a civil marriage is legal.  People can have a religious marriage ceremony (wedding), but it isn’t legal as far as the government is concerned.  With this system there is recognition that there is a difference between the religious and civil institutions of marriage.

If the government were to stop using the term marriage and call all legal marriages civil unions then I would have far fewer issues with the government extending same-sex couples to same rights as male-female couples.  For me, the government redefining the term marriage is a violation the First Amendment and the separation of church and state.  It would be like the government giving a legal definition for baptism.

If I have the opportunity to cast a vote to define marriage, I will always vote to retain the Judeo-Christian definition as only being between a man and a woman (a vote I got to cast when the issue was on the ballot in Ohio).  At the same time, I understand that when the government uses the term marriage, that it is not talking about the same institution described and outlined in scripture.  Because of this I know that if the government chooses to extend marital rights to same-sex couples, that it doesn’t change what marriage is.  It doesn’t mean that same-sex unions are marriage, because the government doesn’t define what makes a marriage, God does.

It’s for this reason that I oppose same-sex marriage, but am far less concerned with it becoming legal than I am about whether or not we are feeding the poor or how the government interacts with other nations.  I find that it’s far more for Christians to reach out to homosexuals and let them know that even while homosexuality is a sin that God still loves them and that Christ died in their place for their sins, instead of fighting to make sure that they don’t have the same legal rights as same-sex couples.

Conclusion

I am pro-life and support the Biblical definition of marriage.  I believe that abortion needs to be banned on a federal level, that exceptions should be made for instances of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother, and that any anti-abortion platform needs to include provisions for making adoption easier and cheaper, provide for the healthcare needs of expectant mothers, and make contraception more easily accessible.  I also believe that marriage is defined by God and that He has defined it as being between a man and a woman, and that even if the government redefines the term to include same-sex couples, it is really only redefining civil unions and not marriage, because marriage isn’t a civil institution.

Many Christians view these as the most important issues.  Many view them as the only issues and only choose to vote based on these two issues.  However, as Christians, we need to understand that while these issues are important, they should never be the only issues that determine who we vote for.  I refuse to be a single-issue voted, and will consider these issues along with all of the other issues facing our nation when deciding who to vote for.

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.