Because of their lust for power, the two-faced re-publican party will take notice if they lose because Christians rebuked a wicked choice and rather supported a godly man facing crucifixion at the polls.

Whatever happened to absolute morality wherein something is always either wrong or right regardless of the situation or possible outcome?

What do I mean? There is an old allegory about how to boil a frog. It is said that if you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water it will immediately jump out.

But if you drop a frog in water that is slightly warm and turn up the heat gradually then the frog just sits there and lets itself be boiled alive, without attempting to jump out of the pot, without even knowing that it is indeed being boiled alive.

This allegory has been applied again, and again regarding the American people’s reaction to liberalism/socialism. And it is pretty clear who is who if you apply this allegory to this year’s election.

So let’s vote for the candidate who will make the frog jump out of the pot so we can have a true conservative in 2012. Otherwise we will all get gradually boiled alive.

After all it took Carter to get us Reagan.

I see your point. However, I must say that when I vote for president, I am going to be voting for the one, who comes the closet to what I believe the Bible teaches that government is supposed to be and do.

His religious affiliation is not so much a concern of mine as what he believes about the role of government in our lives.

I happen to believe that government should have a very limited role in our lives, only fulfilling the responsibilities that Scripture outlines government is to do and no more.

If Obama comes closest to that, then I am going to vote for him. If McCain comes closest to that then I am going to vote for him. In my opinion, McCain comes closer to that than Obama, though he is for a bigger government than I am.

One thing we know for sure. When it is all over, the one that God has chosen to be in office will be there. He is the one who is ultimately in control.

Or does “righteous” means “God-fearing” or “born again” or “right-wing evangelical”? It seems to me that the writer of the Proverbs might be pointing to two extremes in order to make his point that rulers do have a tremendous effect on the happiness of their citizenry. As I think about the differences between Saul & David, it occurs to me that neither man ascended to office by popular vote. That’s true of the OT judges and even pagan kings like Cyrus who certainly would have made the Jews of his kingdom “rejoice” in his political decisions to let them return to their homeland, compared to the wicked Babylonian rulers who held them against their will.

In spite of Bill Clinton’s immorality, he would still be considered “righteous” compared to President Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, under whose rule the people surely must mourn (except those on his payroll). What do you think?

What role does faith play in leading? In voting? In our daily life? For everyone these answers will be different. I think it is clear that our values are defined largely by our religious background. What I think is not so clear (as evidenced by the wide body of work on the topic and no concensus) is how that manifests itself into politics.

I would like to change the dialogue a bit and venture a new approach. People who feel life begins at conception mostly believe that they should be opposed to legalized abortion. People who feel a yearning to see an end to poverty tend to believe in socialized welfare programs. The list goes on and on as most people want to see the law dictate the values they cherish. And that is ok. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and approaches and their strategies. No one is entitled to speak for God as to which political position is the right one. (The one exception to this would be in Catholocism, but one chooses to submit to Papal Authority by being a Catholic and in turn accepts that the Pope speaks on behalf of God so the political portions of the new seven deadly sins would apply to you.)

What is not ok is the infighting and the claims that those who disagree with your politics somehow have less faith. Politics is largely about strategy not values. Some believe that outlawing things they feel are immoral is a good strategy to stop them. Others feel that it is not. CS Lewis once said that it would be a bad thing to try to legislate divorce out of existence. It was not the role of the Church to change peoples morals it was to change their hearts. Given the esteem he is given within most churches this should be seen as at least an acceptable and defensible position.

Grace, one of the hallmarks of the Christian faith seems to be lost in the world of faith and politics. Maybe this should be examined. Disagreements will happen. How we handle these disagreements should be a reflection of our values.

to see post in its entirety see…
http://www.scottoverpeck.com/2008/03/politics-of-god.html