I can’t imagine not voting this time against such an improved lot, on matters of life and liberty and religion. Objections of conscience against not voting at all, for me anyway, are not so much about politics, process, or policy “preferences”, per se, but narrowed to human life and religious liberty (spiritual life).
Beyond those basics it’s pretty much all just gamesmanship. We can deal with that. Anything less, ushers in the seems to me we’re in the weeds, we’re already dead.
I'm personally thrilled that we actually have multiple choices to pick from (Cruz, Walker), and not just of the "hold my nose to vote" variety. But I'm also jaded enough to know that this could all be a well-scripted act, put together by their handlers, polling groups and speechwriters. But more on that in a minute.
I liked how BlackElk put something up-thread:
"the more firm public policy commitments we can exact out of their hides the better. Not that we will really trust them, of course...it sets them up for deep humiliations and chastisements yet to come and that is good in reducing their overstuffed egos."On that note, if a candidate is going to identify himself as a Christian, he can expect me to weigh his claim. Further, if a candidate claims to be a churchgoer, but his church has a waffling statement of faith, he will get very little credit from me without further evidence. Case in point: back in 2011, Herman Cain's four-sentence statement of faith actually said more than his church's, and I arrived at the conclusion that his politics weren't being formed by his beliefs, since he seemingly had very few beliefs. I'm willing to similarly jettison my support for Cruz and Walker if I find they've been playing with me, or playing church.
I’ve expressed my non-support for the whole field several times already on this thread, but since you brought the candidates’ Christian confession of faith into this, I have to say that I don’t care how many times they say “Jesus” while they’re still supporting immoral, unconstitutional, fake “pro-life” laws that in effect end in “and then you can kill the baby.”
Personally, I don’t know why “you shall not murder,” ie equal protection under the law for the individual, unalienable God-given right to life, is not non-negotiable for every professing Christian in this country.
It is a mathematical certainty that if equal protection for the innocent unborn was non-negotiable for all who call themselves Christians, the practice of murdering babies, any babies, would speedily end.
So sorry. I know my last line made no sense whatsoever. I didn’t know the dang thing was there. I was editing and rearranging my corkscrew thoughts and it dropped out of view. How embarrassing.
Now let me go back and focus on your remarks. Thanks.
I think you highlighted the money line from Black Elk’s brief, among several important statements. Tying candidates to some decent their public policy statements may not make it a promise, but it opens the gate to exposing who they are. Or aren’t.
I believe we mostly all agree that our vote is first and foremost informed by our faith and the Church. I know these candidates are not perfect, but they too (as are we) simply straining towards salvation. May God be with them and reveal the one we need. Thanks very much, Alex.