Why This Far-Right, Pro-Life Christian Plans to Vote for Schwarzenegger

I am what would be called a Calvinist, Fundamentalist Christian. This simply means, centrally, that I believe Jesus, including His teaching that the sixty-six books of the Bible are the very and true word of God. I believe that all abortion is morally wrong, except in that tiny shard of instances where it is the only choice to save the life of the mother. Children should be protect by law from conception on. Homosexual practice is immoral and destructive, and society should no more sanction it than it should bestiality or incest. These are important values to me.

Why in the world, then, do I plan to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger with a perfectly clean conscience?

It's been a rough few weeks. I've been told innumerable times that I should change my screen name, which is an abbreviation of Biblical Christian (alluding to my Biblical Christianity web site). I've been told that I should take Jeremiah 8:9 ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?") from my tag line, and stop quoting Scripture. I've been called a fake, a phony, and a number of other such endearments. I've been told I must have lost my mind, that I am in sin.

The sources have been quite remarkable. They've included people who in the past praised my supposed sagacity and Biblical acumen, people who in the past have enjoyed my friendship and loyalty, and have had me defend them time and again when they were under attack. They have been on the receiving end of much support and friendship from me. Now some of them treat me with open contempt and disdain. The phrase "the benefit of a doubt" seems no longer to be as widely understood and accepted as I would have thought.

Did I renounce my faith? Did I leave my wife for a WalMart checker (or anyone or anything else)? Did I join the ACLU, NOW, NARAL, GLAD, NAMBLA, or any such abomination? Did I change my position on any of the values listed out above?

Nope. I just declined to vote for Tom McClintock, and thought it wisest to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor of California.

One of most sharply illustrative examples was a recent one. Not to embarrass the source, the poster, presumably an ardent Christian, snapped, "You are continuing to reject God's Word."

Now, again, what had I done? What part of the Word had I rejected? The Biblical teaching on the Trinity, on the inerrancy of the Word, on the way of salvation in Christ, on the Deity of Christ? The calls to purity and truth? The teaching about the humanity of the unborn, and their right to life?

The part of God's Word I am said to have "rejected" can only have been the famous Bible verse, "Thus saith the LORD of hosts: Thou shalt vote for Tom McClintock; thou shalt not in any wise vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger, for that would be an abomination unto me."

Does the Bible say I morally may not vote for Schwarzenegger? Does it say that I must vote for Tom McClintock?

The milieu of the Bible is utterly foreign to the notion of a representative democracy. None of its characters lived under such, nor is it envisioned per se. Virtually all lived under one form or another of monarchy.

Do we learn anything about relating to ungodly or evil rulers, or living in situations in any way analogous to our own? Indeed we do. We see Joseph serving Pharaoh with such distinction and loyalty that he gained Pharaoh's complete trust (Genesis 41:44f.). Or to move far ahead, my namesake Daniel served not one, but four ungodly despots with excellence and loyalty. In fact, he says to King Darius, who had just forced him to spend a night with the lions, "O king, live forever!" (Daniel 6:21). Did that wish make Daniel an accomplice in Darius' evil? Should he have expressed the wish that God would smite Darius down right quickly? God does not seem to think so.

And neither Pharaoh nor Darius were Republicans — let alone conservative, Christian, pro-life Republicans.

First is an absolute belief in the all-encompassing sovereignty of God, who sets up one ruler and puts down another, and rules over the very thoughts and decisions of the king (Proverbs 21:1; Daniel 2:21, etc.).

Second is what Jeremiah the prophet told the Jews who were exiled in Babylon:

Now, there is an imperative that I believe applies also to me as a Christian: seek the welfare of the "city" in which I live, pray for it, work towards it. And I believe that the role of those who walk with God is crucial, that their input is essential to the wellbeing of any society (cf. Proverbs 11:11; 14:34; 29:8). So I must apply any wisdom I gain from good to the good of my "city," in this case applying to California and America as well.

Further, in so doing (as in all of my Christian life) God not only allows, but expects me to use my brain to its fullest. While it is beyond dispute that, where the Word speaks, I must hear, believe, and obey (John 14:15; 15:14; etc.), it is equally true that where it is silent or general, I must make the best reasonable, wise application that I can. God says that it is my part to make plans (Proverbs 16:1, 9). Planning, of course, necessarily involves strategizing, estimating, taking eventualities and consequences into consideration, counting the cost. In fact, Jesus expressly commends counting the cost before attempting anything (Luke 14:28). He laments that those professing faith too often tend to be so foolish and irresponsible, and says that they should be as wise as the children of this age, as wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16; Luke 16:8). We are to use opportunities wisely and responsibly and to the fullest (Ephesians 5:16), taking full responsibility for our actions and their consequences.

I would hope that the relationship of the preceding to this election would be obvious, but experience has taught me to leave nothing to chance. Allow me to enumerate:

To say what none should need me to say, given that my essay The Bible and the Bull's-Eye on the Baby is just a click or two away, I find abortion abhorrent and indefensible. Accordingly, I disagree with about 98% of Schwarzenegger's position on abortion. I find it reprehensible and indefensible that he, or anyone, should be indifferent to the wanton destruction of unborn children. I have nothing positive to say about our areas of disagreement on this issue.

I wish Schwarzenegger's position were different. I wish there were an electable, gung-ho pro-life candidate in this race. But this is not a fairy tale, and I accomplish nothing by wishing. Because then I would also have to wish that the electorate were different (I do), that our culture were different (I do), and that our laws were different (I do).

So meanwhile that leaves me, a Christian adult, needing to make an adult decision. Do I waste my vote on a man who cannot win, and who said he would initiate no change in the status quo even if he were elected, just to make myself feel good?

No. Abortion is not the issue in this election. Sad or happy, that's just the case. Davis is not being recalled because Californians loathe his stance on abortion. I wish he were, I wish they did; but he isn't and they don't. He is being recalled for lack of leadership, corruption and fiscal mismanagement. In all these areas, Schwarzenegger shows promise of being an improvement.

Okay, so corruption and fiscal mismanagement are issues of concern to me as a Christian, too. So do I seek to do my "city" good by a gain in those areas, where a direct gain on abortion is simply not possible? Or do I refuse to do any good because I can't do all the good I want to do?

And, in the long term, I believe this serves my goals better than aiding Davis-Bustamante by voting for McClintock, or opposing the recall. Arnold is not pro-life, though he is better than the current governor (i.e. he favors parental notification, and opposes live-birth infanticide). But he will support politicans who are pro-life. He has already pledged to campaign vigorously for our pro-life President. He will campaign for pro-life Senatorial and Congressional candidates. This is, in the long term, good for the issue.

Also, consider this: who is being driven out of the state? Is it not family men and women, unable to support their families under a worsening economy? And who stays? Is it not the elite, or the government-dependency class? Are they likely to be pro-life?

So opposing Schwarzenegger would drive out the pro-life element in the state, and in the long run harm life issues that I care about, by hacking away at the already-slender minority of voters who see the issue as I do.

Further, what has the scorched-earth segment of McClintock's supporters done for the future of our interests in this state? If what has happened here is any indication, have they challenged the public image we religious conservatives carry as being self-righteous, demanding, short-sighted, unpleasable, and hateful? Have they presented themselves as folks who can work with those who don't fully agree with them, or as demanding full and unquestioning compliance on every particular?

In this connection, I cite myself one last time. My most coolly cutting and caustic critics have been people who agree with me on the issues of the day 95-100%, and disagree with society as a whole — but simply differ from me on this one strategic choice. Yet that hasn't even slowed them in dealing in the most hostile manner, and calling me the most extraordinary names, without warrant. Has behavior like this increased the stock and influence of conservatives in California, or decreased it?

One of the most embarrassing comments to me as a Christian was made by a fellow who called Hugh Hewitt and faulted him for lacking faith. God can do miracles, he said (correctly). So why not "believe God" that He will do a miracle and cause McClintock to win the election? Hugh's problem was his lack of faith.

I find this very offensive. Faith, in the Bible is not our way of enlisting God to do our will.

First, in brief, I think the word "NO" is hardly strong enough. NO verse in the Bible says anything about God's will for McClintock's fate in this election.

Second, if God wanted to do a miracle, why not a Gideon-like miracle? Remember, even though Gideon started out vastly outnumbered, God thinned down his army to a bare skeleton crew, so that the resultant victory would clearly be His (Judges 7). So maybe we'd actually be "helping God" by voting for Schwarzenegger, on this caller's mistaken premise.

But of course all this is foolishness; in the absence of a direct word from God, we are held accountable (as I've shown) for implementing wisdom, strategizing, and responsible planning. You want to show your "faith," do it by obeying God in utilizing those God-given abilities.

In an attempt to make one's vote in this election a matter of Christian orthodoxy, a new and additional test of salvation and spiritual reality, some have quoted Isaiah 5:20 — "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" In this connection, one has sometimes heard, quoted as if it were Scripture, the bromide, "The lesser of two evils is still evil." And I think on rare occasion someone has cast out to 2 Corinthians 6:14, "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"

These are all true statements, and all just as irrelevant to this decision as they are true.

As you have seen, I do not call evil good. Schwarzenegger's position on abortion is marginally better than his opponents', but it is still an evil position.

But wait a moment — does that verse not also wish woe on those who call good evil? And have not many Arnold-bashers on this thread been guilty of that very sin, time and again? If Schwarzenegger says something liberal, they jump all over him. But if he says something conservative, or says he agrees with McClintock or promotes one of his ideas... they still jump all over him! If he says something liberal, he's telling the truth and we should hate him for it, mocking his accent and his name and his being married to a Kennedy spin-off. If he says something conservative, he's lying, he's a dupe and a phony, and we should hate him. In a stunning reversal of practicing what Paul commends as the way of love in 1 Corinthians 13, and with apparently no self-awareness at all, these folks only keep a record of evil, hope nothing, believe nothing, and recently have virtually rejoiced in evil.

But is the lesser of two evils an evil? I suppose; but what is not acknowledged is that every vote for any human being other than the Lord Jesus Christ (who isn't one of the 135 in this election) is a vote for the lesser of two evils! Ecclesiastes 7:20 says, "Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins." Is that still true, or is it not? To be specific, is McClintock without sin? If the reports are right, was it not evil for him to promise to leave the race if he was not winning, and then not do so? Is he the exception to the many sweeping statements in Scripture showing that we all still err, even the saved? Then a vote for McClintock is no less a vote for the lesser of two evils. And the decision must be made on another basis.

As to being unequally yoked, unless my vote marries me to Schwarzenegger or says that I am joining my heart to him, I need not be overly concerned about that.

But what about abortion, again? As I've said, it's not the issue of the election, and McClintock has made it moot (whether he admits it or not).

Many Arnold-bashers voted for and supported President Bush (and many do not). To the former I would pose this question: "Is Bush's position on abortion the Biblical position?" Indeed it is not. The President apparently believes it is just and right to punish a child for his parents' sins. If one of his parents was a rapist or committed incest, President Bush believes it is morally permissible to kill the child. But he is wrong. It is not, in fact, moral, nor Biblical.

But we who voted for and support President Bush still recognize that his position is a huge step in the right direction, is far better than his opposition's position, and constitutes a gain. So we support him... though he is strictly speaking the lesser of two evils on this matter.

They can see and apply this in regards to President Bush (thank God), but can't see the same principle as it applies in the current situation.

Let us develop that just a little more. To my harsher critics I have often posed this question: "Where did you last go out to dinner?" None has answered. Maybe they know where I'm going with this, and know in their hearts their position will break down. Because if they said "Jake's Hash House," I could legitimately ask, "What is Jake's position on abortion? What was your waitress' position on abortion? The cashier, the cook, the bus boy -- what are their positions on abortion? How do you know that none of them will take your money and actually use it for an abortion tomorrow?" And once we finished with Jake's, we could go on to their newspaper delivery boy, and all the employees of every doctor, car mechanic, gardener, and chiropractor they patronize.

I'm sure they'd not like that line of thinking. They'd sputter that there is a difference. But is there? If my voting for Schwarzenegger for the good things I believe he will do, hiring him to be — not a pastor, but — the governor of a troubled state necessarily involves me in approving his position on abortion, how does the giving of actual money that could go to an abortionist not constitute the same sin? Is ignorance a real excuse? Is the fact that these people do a "don't ask, don't tell" on abortion relieve them of responsibility, on their premises? I don't think so.

No, as God said through Jeremiah, I am seeking the good of my "city." It is for that good that I intend to "hire" Schwarzenegger as my critics every day "hire" countless pro-abort people, not for their position on abortion, but to do a particular task. I know that Schwarzenegger will not do all the good I wish to see done. But then again, neither would McClintock nor any other human being. Professed Christians need to get back to these Biblical truths:

Important as the influence of the powerful can be, we need to stop imagining that all we need is to get the right man in office, and he will wave his magic fairy wand and make it all better. Not as long as we live in a republic. Not as long as our fellow-citizens do not "get it." It is we ourselves who bear the pressure. We must pray, we must lead exemplary lives, we must build more persuasive arguments and be bolder about making them. We must seek God for revival, and do what we can to bear witness and win over those opposing what is for their own good. The best politician in the world cannot do that, and we need to stop acting as if we think they can accomplish what we have failed to accomplish. That Arnold Schwarzenegger is the best we can do in this election is indeed a comment on California, and not a good comment at that. But we will not honor God by being so foolish as to allow the best to be the enemy of the better.

It should give us pause that our real, true enemies in this war all want us to vote for McClintock, or against the recall; they clearly see Schwarzenegger as their opponent and our ally.

It is not to our glory that so few of us fail to see what they all clearly do see.

As a conservative pro-life Christian, I plan to vote with a clear conscience for Arnold Schwarzenegger. It is a rough choice, a hard choice. It will not be the most enthusiastic vote I will ever have cast. But he is the only candidate who (A) comes close to some of my values, and (B) will actually do something to forward them, because (C) he can win.

Meanwhile, I will pray for his conviction of sin, and his conversion to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. And I will maintain the thought that he is likelier to respond to a loving witness, than to the seething and volcanic hatred that I have seen some of my professing fellow-Christians express towards him, and towards anyone who dares to speak a kind word about him, day after day.

It's embarrassing how you make a mockery of God to suit your lack of faith in God and fear doing His bidding.

Your appeal resonates loudly with those unfamiliar with Bible and the nature of the Judeo Christian God. In no way, shape or form have you represented Him in this essay rationalizing away, rather immaturely of His teachings.

I'm amazed that folks didn't bother to pick up on your Scripture twist of this: (oh there are others ... )

What a shame how you mischaracterize your own namesake! Daniel NEVER served any despots. Daniel served God despite the despots. Daniel was able to analyze the dreams of a despot so he had value to the depot and of all the phonies Daniel told the King his dream and analyzed it for him!

Daniel did NOT eat Temple food because of Jewish dietary restrictions. Again he chose to obey God's teachings rather than mans way. Surely not the way to SERVE a despot!

Daniel 1:8-9

[8] But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.

[9] Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.

Dan.1:17

[17] As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.

God gave Daniel that knowledge because Daniel SERVED God over man. Daniel prayed to God and did GODS' bidding not mans' as you are doing. Daniel relied on GOD and obeyed GOD despite how unpopular that was even in his day.

Later the special ability God gave to Daniel was put to use:

Dan.2:1-2

[1] And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.

[2] Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.

Daniel did this for two kings but was ALWAYS loyal to God's teachings. He was NOT a compromiser. He didn't fear standing up for what was right and put his faith in God, not man.

Later Daniel interpreted a dream for the King that succeeded Nebuchadnezzar, whose name was Belshazzar.

Dan.5:12

[12] Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will shew the interpretation.

When Daniel revealed the dream and its meaning then:

Daniel 2:47-49

[47] The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

[48] Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.

[49] Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king.

You may also want to brush up on Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego and how loyally to God's teachings, instead of man benefited them in the fiery furnace.

Now let's examine your bizarre interpretation of Daniel 6:21

"Or to move far ahead, my namesake Daniel served not one, but four ungodly despots with excellence and loyalty. In fact, he says to King Darius, who had just forced him to spend a night with the lions, "O king, live forever!" (Daniel 6:21). Did that wish make Daniel an accomplice in Darius' evil? Should he have expressed the wish that God would smite Darius down right quickly? God does not seem to think so."

This needs some background to put it into its PROPER CONTEXT. You again, took this OUT OF CONTEXT to suit your lack of faith in God and make your humanistic emotional appeal.

Darius the Median took over the kingdom. Darisu favored Daniel but others were envious of this so in Daniel 6 we see how Daniels adversaries plot against Daniel.

[1] It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom;

[2] And over these three presidents; of whom Daniel was FIRST: that the princes might give accounts unto them, and the king should have no damage.

[3] Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm.

[4] Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion AGAINST Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was FAITHFUL (to God), neither was there any error or fault found in him.

[5] Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.

His adversaries cleverly came up with this:

[6] Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live for ever.

[7] All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counselors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions.

[8] Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.

[9] Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree.

[10] Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.

Daniel KNEW this was wrong according to man but Daniel still prayed to the Judeo Christian God.

[11] Then these men assembled, and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God.

[12] Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king's decree; Hast thou not signed a decree, that every man that shall ask a petition of any God or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered and said, The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.

[13] Then answered they and said before the king, That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day.

[14] Then the king, when he heard these words, was SORE DISPLEASED WITH HIMSELF, and SET HIS HEART ON DANIEL TO DELIVER HIM: and HE LABOURED TILL THE GOING DOWN OF THE SUN TO DELIVER HIM

In other words, Darius was caught between a rock and a hard place. The law was unalterable and he could see no way of getting Daniel out of it without destroying his credibilty.

[15] Then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king established may be changed.

[16] Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee.

Kind Darius hoped that HIS God would deliver him because he couldn't.

[18] Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting: neither were instruments of musick brought before him: and his sleep went from him.

[19] Then the king arose very early in the morning, and went in haste unto the den of lions.

[20] And when he came to the den, he cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel: and the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions?

[21] Then said Daniel unto the king, O king, live for ever.

Daniel KNEW the king didn't want to put him to death and was glad to see the king as well and knew he would NOW be a believer too! Nothing wrong with Daniel rejoicing over this or the kind who thought highly of Daniel rejoicing at not being hurt in the lions den.

[22] My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.

[23] Then was the king exceeding glad for him, and commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God.

[24] And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces or ever they came at the bottom of the den.

[25] Then king Darius wrote unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.

[26] I make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God, and stedfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end.

King Darius declared the Judeo Christian God as the true living God! All because Daniel had FAITH in God and did what was right in God's eyes rather than compromising to suit man. Please take a lesson from YOUR NAMESAKE and stop distorting what went on here.

[27] He delivereth and rescueth, and he worketh signs and wonders in heaven and in earth, who hath delivered Daniel from the power of the lions.

[28] So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

Now back to your fallacious statement:

"Did that wish make Daniel an accomplice in Darius' evil? Should he have expressed the wish that God would smite Darius down right quickly? God does not seem to think so."

Darius was hoodwinked. Daniel had NO DESIRE to have a NEW BELIEVER be SMITTEN. The decree by Darius later confirms if there are any doubts that he too is a believer in the Judeo Christian God. It would defy logic for Daniel to want him killed after being unharmed in the lions den.

Daniels' OBEYING GOD is what landed him in the lions den. Daniel said "O King live forever when he saw the King recognized the Judeo Christian God as the true God. Daniel was happy for him despite what he had been through. Daniel followed God's teachings and not that of vindictiveness as you are suggesting. You conveniently took that passage out of context.

Landing in the lions den happened because others were envious of Daniel and proposed a law that people could only pray TO the King. It was AFTER Daniel was unscathed in the lions den that the Kind recognized Daniels God, the Judeo Christian God as the ONLY God. So, how you paint Daniel is nearly blasphemous. You rewrote the story ONLY to serve your desperate need to get a RHINO in office. You are compromised and fear a godly man, McClintock will not win. Daniel could easily have succumbed to the eating pagan food, stopped praying to God but Daniels FAITH prohibited him from compromising. He did not fear bucking what was unpopular. He feared God more than silly decrees against the Judeo Christian God. Take a lesson from this, Daniel ... . Do your namesake proud instead of bringing shame to yourself.

You have chosen to ignore the nature of God and vote for an ungodly man, Arnold whereas Tom is more inline with Judeo Christian teachings - against abortion, against homosexuality, and not a groper to name a few issues.

I can't tell you how unimpressed I am with your rationalizing away God's teachings to support a despot, Arnold. You have successfully demonstrated this:

Col.2:8

[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

It is impossible for me to rationalize away the nature of God. Jesus loved children. Too many verses to list that clear that up. To suggest that voting for a baby killer is okay with Jesus is nearly blasphemous. God wants Christians to stand up for what is right - just as Daniel did. God does also not explicitly say abortion is wrong but in knowing Him, it is His nature to abhor that.

It is also not a mystery how God viewed homosexuality. To suggest that a secular leader be elected that endorses this, is also nearly blasphemous. It doesn't matter if it is a secular or a religious leader - endorsing homosexuality is wrong and NOT something the followers of the Judeo Christian God should be advocating. I won't bother to list verses on His views of homosexuality. either. Can you seriously imagine Jesus voting for Arnold? Look at how upset He was with the money changers in the temple. I submit to you that reaction would pale in comparison to His reaction to homosexuals and abortions. Also Jesus made it quite clear that if you are not for Him, then you are against Him.

Luke 9:50

[50] And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

BTW this is not something Bush made up. It came from the Bible. So, if you are for His teachings on abortion and homosexuality to name two problematic issues then you are against Him.

I'd say this verse helps to sum you up:

1Cor.3:18

[18] Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

Your "wisdom" is based on emotion not Biblical Christianity. There is absolutely NO wisdom in what you wrote. None.

In your desperation to rationalize voting for an ungodly man, Arnold , you practically lie about what is written in the Bible, -> see comments on Daniel. You twist Scripture and the ignorant don't see it. You purposely mislead people.

Your blind love of this world, has caused you to stray from Biblical teachings. I was appalled at your ridicule of teachings. Every single thing we should or should not do is not explicitly stated. Yet, we know the nature of God through what is written For example, the Bible doesn't say that I can't speak with food in my mouth and spit it out at people that I don't like but His general nature tells me that this is not a proper example for others. This hair splitting immature approach is what I see as typical of liberals - certainly not Bible based Christians. Reminds me of "I didn't have sex with that woman..." Later we find out how ole Bill redefined sex. He knew that what he did was a sex act and you also know that God doesn't want Christians endorsing abortionists and homosexual advocators in positions of authority. It is the Christian who is to be the light of the world and an ambassador for Christ. You are endorsing darkness and lying about Biblical teachings to the ignorant.

Matt.5:13

[13] Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

2Cor.5:20

[20] Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

You are to reflect this in your VOTE as well. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

It is clear to me that you value this world more than the next by this hollow essay. Otherwise you would not endorse a man, Arnold who clearly has ungodly views. I'd be careful if I were you that this doesn't become a permanent part of your persona:

1John.2:15

[15] Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

In the future, I will link you with this verse:

1John.4:1

[1] Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

To endorse people who care less about abortion or immorality that is going on out there suggests you are guilty of this verse as well:

Prov.14:12

[12] There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

It's stated again because your mistake is common:

Prov.16:25

[25] There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

I end with this verse:

Matt.15:14

[14] Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

I believe Nephi succinctly summed it up best in secular language:

Dan, "It would've been simpler and more honest to simply say, "Due to a lack of faith, fear forces me to reject the true conservative and align myself with a pro-gay, pro-abortion, "fiscal conservative" socialist liberal who calls himself a Republican."

"Anything more is pure rationalization."

Right on Nephi! (#65)

The good news for you is that IF you repent you will be forgiven. Think about it. You've compromised because your faith is weak and you allowed your emotions to get the better of you. Hey, it happens BUT know that it is wrong and fixable.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.