Palin and Complimentarianism

You could always write in candidates. For instance, most of everyone I know is writing in Chuck Baldwin and it is my hope that we push these next 4 years to give the Constitution party more popularity. Why does it seem like a two-party system? Because people don't think outside the box and when they see that Democrats and Republicans are failing them and we can show evidence of something that can work, they might be won to our side. For a state like CA, it is a waste of your vote to vote for McCain (besides I disagree with him on too much) so I wrote in Chuck Baldwin. If you aren't able to write in candidates in NC, then you might as well not vote in the areas that don't provide good godly men.

I have a hard time with your last sentence. I would rather vote for the best option than to just sit out voting.

tuubaaku wrote:I have a hard time with your last sentence. I would rather vote for the best option than to just sit out voting.

What if they both were for the murder of unborn children? Do you vote for the one who opposes partial birth abortion (McCain), but is for other forms of abortion (McCain)? It seems like the line needs to be drawn somewhere. What we may differ on is where it is drawn.

We don't only have McCain and Obama on the ticket though. Bob Barr is on for the libertarian party so we could vote for him.

Can't vote Libertarian in most cases if you care about abortion, marriage, ... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Barr very much pro-choice?

Brian, note that I'm not talking about elect-ability here. I'm talking about choosing the best candidate available and voting for them, even if you don't completely agree with them. If Baldwin weren't an option, would most people here not vote at all? Does that do more good than voting for the best candidate?

Aye . . . there's the rub. Very good question. That is why I would ask the question . . . Where should the line be drawn? Should it be different for everyone depending on what their preference is? Is the line movable if your options are limited and both candidates stink . . . only one is less smelly than the other?

Personally, if I were limited in my options (as it seems those in NC are), then I would not vote against my set standards. I would abstain from voting for a particular office and then hound my representative once he got into office to remind him what his duty is. I am aware that not all people view it the same way, but I have yet to hear a good argument as to why one law of God needs to be violated for the "greater good."

I've actually heard some bad things about Bob Barr. Apparently he isn't as good in his "private" life as he is in his public figure and speech. So don't vote for him!

As for the not voting part question; I can see not wanting to vote for anybody bad. It just seems wrong though not to vote at all. It seems as though we're throwing away a great privilege that men and women died to give us.

Legolas Greenleaf wrote:As for the not voting part question; I can see not wanting to vote for anybody bad. It just seems wrong though not to vote at all. It seems as though we're throwing away a great privilege that men and women died to give us.

I agree. I can see not wanting to vote at all, but I would personally would prefer voting for the lesser of two evils than not voting at all. For the record, I think Obama is many, many times more evil than McCain, even if I do not like or agree with him on some of his stands. I would much rather vote for McCain where I know what I'm getting - he has a history that I can judge him by - than vote for someone who does not have a record and where I can only expect the very worst.

I guess I don't see a vote as condoning everything the candidate stands for, but more of trying to choose the best person available (maybe more pragmatic than idealistic?). Why is that view of voting wrong?

I agree with tuubaaku - no candidate is going to agree with us on every point. People are diverse and have different ideas. If we all just voted for someone we agree with completely, hardly anybody would vote.
Now, when it's a matter of moral issues that the candidate has or supports, that is a different matter entirely. But there is a difference between not supporting blatant sin and not supporting someone just because you disagree on a few points that could be considered "gray areas".

I hope that makes sense, I'm dog-tired right now and my brain is malfunctioning.

well, I don't think abortion is much of gray area. however, wouldn't it be better to have McCain, who would support abortion less than Obama, who is radically pro-abortion in every way possible? I think there are other areas where McCain would be better than Obama, too.

tuubaaku wrote:I guess I don't see a vote as condoning everything the candidate stands for, but more of trying to choose the best person available (maybe more pragmatic than idealistic?). Why is that view of voting wrong?

It depends on what the stands are that you do not agree with. I reject the claim that the Bible presents no guidelines for voting. If God has given us the blessing of voting (which He has), then it would be wise for us to follow His standards for voting. For this reason, I take passages such as Exodus 18, Deuteronomy 1 and 17, and Romans 13 as directing the Christian how to vote. To the degree we ignore these, we invite God's judgment.

In summary, since God has not left us to fumble in the dark while voting, but has clearly set forth the requirements both for civil office (see Exodus and Deuteronomy) and the kinds of laws that should be passed (see Romans 13), we should vote accordingly. It is not a matter of agreeing with a candidate in everything, but in agreeing with God about who is a qualified candidate. I could be wrong, but I have not yet been shown a sound biblical argument to the contrary.

I see great principles in these passages for how to vote - however, I don't really see the principle of not voting at all and just letting the rest of society decide, if there are no suitable candidates to vote for. Maybe we'll just have to disagree on this one.

Out of curiosity, if you don't mind me asking, how often do you put this into practice and not vote in a race?

tuubaaku wrote:I see great principles in these passages for how to vote - however, I don't really see the principle of not voting at all and just letting the rest of society decide, if there are no suitable candidates to vote for.

My reasoning goes like this . . . 1) God has told us the kind of ruler we should vote for 2) If we vote for someone who is contrary to this, it is disobedience to God.

tuubaaku wrote:Out of curiosity, if you don't mind me asking, how often do you put this into practice and not vote in a race?

I never have to in California. It sounds like this may be an issue for some in North Carolina (not to be confused with the South at large)

tuubaaku wrote:Maybe we'll just have to disagree on this one.

I disagree with my best friend on this one. You are in good company.