[CommerceComet]

Practically speaking, Romney is far less of a danger to the constitutional (lawful) governance of this nation than Obama - call it the lesser of two evils if you must. A Christian can vote for Romney with a clear conscience, while at the same time giving no assent or support to Mormonism, which is itself - at best - a post-Christian, neo-pagan religion. In this regard, the choice is between a Mormon (post-Christian, neo-pagan), who is at least by his words supportive of the founding documents/philosophy of this nation, and a socialist, who, personally, is plainly post-Christian if not anti-Christian, and is by his words and actions opposed to the founding documents/philosophy of this nation. If one also takes into account natural law/human conscience, Romney at least seems more in line with such. Obama is clearly an anti-nomian.

All of this is built on a false assumption - no Christian is under the obligation to vote for either man. As you point out, BOTH men are enemies of the Cross. Any Christian who wishes to withhold a vote from either man can simply skip that line or vote for another candidate.

Ironically, the more moral appearing of the two is probably the bigger enemy of traditional Christianity. By all appearances, Obama is as you described a post-Christian, neo-pagan who is generally indifferent to religion (unless he thinks he can use it push his socialism) while Romney is an ardent supporter of a false gospel and probably on a fast track to become one of the highest leaders in this false church once he leaves politics. Given the choice on this dimension, I'd rather have the wolf in wolf's clothing than the wolf is sheep's clothing. The former is generally far less dangerous than the latter.

I think that Christians need to ask themselves "How is voting for an enemy of the Cross serving Christ?"

[Belteshazzar]

CommerceComet wrote:
“All of this is built on a false assumption - no Christian is under the obligation to vote for either man.”

Your argument is built on the false assumption that I said a Christian is under obligation to vote for either man. I never said that. You leaped to that assumption in order to make the point you wanted to make.

Finally, if we are going to restrict our vote giving as Christians to those who are not, as you put it, “enemies of the cross,” we will be doing very little voting. That is the nature of politics and of those who aspire to political power. Few of them are “friends of the cross.” As for Romney being more dangerous, I just don’t buy your argument. Sure, Mormonism is a false gospel. In fact, I will go farther. It is a ridiculous, phantasmagorical gospel dreamed up by a 19th century con man for his own profit. That it was transformed into a religion is a tribute to the gullibility of the many and cynical and self-centered ambition of the few. The Mormon few (i.e. the elite/hierarchy) have been trying to “take over” the United States for almost 200 years now. I’m not overly worried about their chances of success.