Who to vote for... hmmm....
This entry is directed primarily at voters in the United States, but applies to any voting people.
To my recollection, I've never made a political statement in any CelticChristianTunes.com blog entry, newsletter, or on the web site. We're not here to endorse politicians or positions on issues. Having said that though, the recent minor controversy surrounding certain remarks made by Teresa Heinz Kerry relate closely to a recent blog entry made here.
Basically, the story goes like this. From a recent CNN.com story:
In an interview published in USA Today Wednesday, [Teresa] Heinz Kerry was asked about the differences between the first lady and herself.
"Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush....But I don't know that she's ever had a real job -- I mean, since she's been grown up."
So, she suggested the first lady had never had "a real job". She had forgotten that Mrs. Bush had worked as a schoolteacher and librarian prior to settling down and starting a family. Once reminded of this, Heinz Kerry immediately apologized (sincerely, I think):
"I had forgotten that Mrs. Bush had worked as a schoolteacher and librarian, and there couldn't be a more important job than teaching our children," Heinz Kerry said.... "I appreciate and honor Mrs. Bush's service to the country as first lady, and am sincerely sorry I had not remembered her important work in the past."
So after discovering that her suggestion that Bush hadn't ever had a real job was the result of her forgetting that she had been a schoolteacher and librarian, she apologized.
Did Teresa Heinz Kerry also forget that Laura Bush had spent decades as a homemaker and stay-at-home mom? Does she really think that "teaching our children" is more important than "parenting our children"?
Forgetting about the ancient employment history of a person you don't personally know is forgivable. What is disturbing however, is that both Heinz Kerry's original statement and her apology betray her underlying mistaken assumption that is all too common among parents today: that parenting your children and managing a household is not a "real job".
So what does this mean for you and me? Well, maybe not much. Teresa Heinz Kerry is not going to be on the ballot. On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that a husband and wife will have similar worldviews (including those named Kerry and Bush), especially in the areas of parenting and family values, and that reflects on their personal character.
And that's really where this is all heading. As Christians we have a responsibility to read, know, and live by the Bible (assuming your faith isn't totally arbitrary). That extends to every situation in which you choose to put yourself, including the voting booth. If you are a Christian with the ability to vote (whether you're in in a republic such as the United States or another "democratic" society), in making your decision about who to vote for, you have a responsibility to consider the Word of God as it applies to that decision. The person you vote for should first and foremost be a person whose character is shaped by those virtues described in the Bible, and second, have policies that are most consistent with the Bible as you have prayerfully interpreted it.
The policy question is a complex one; different biblical interpretations may lead to different conclusions, and I'll leave that up to you.
The character question is much simpler. Which presidential candidate has a character that more closely exemplifies the virtues of the Bible? Identifying those virtues is not rocket science. Who appears to have greater love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal 5:22)?
That is what, more than anything else, you must decide. The trick is doing it in such a way that your opinions on policy do not lead to an inevitable preference for the guy you've already decided you agree with on the issues.
In my opinion, one candidate wins hands down on the biblical character issue, and I'm probably not doing a very good job of concealing who I think that is. Oh well. :)
6 Comments:
Outstanding post, Cory!
For many years now my wife Deborah has been a "stay at home Mom". And we have been surprised by the sheer number of people who simply don't value that role. Most people, often meaning well, will ask me something like "So, what does your wife do?". When I tell them her career choice they just kind of glaze over and say "Oh...". And though they don't usually say it, the message translates well enough. They might as well say "Oh, what's wrong with her? Can't she keep a real job?".
It's comments like these from the "Democratic" candidacy that VERY much concern me. And I think that though the role of the first lady is an unofficial one, it wields more power than many people know. I tend to avoid political issues, but I find Heinz-Kerry to just plain scary. Anyone that goes on national TV and tells the media (which, dare I say has been pretty darn fair to democratic/liberal candidates) and told them to "shove it". She is a loose cannon that makes Hillary Clinton look like Mary Poppins.
As an aside, I am surprised and delighted at the role (however small) that blogs have played in this election. Fascinating.
Well, good stuff. Keep on blogging!
I would like my observations of the upcoming American Presidential election to be known without the editing of the "liberal media".
I would like to say firstly, that God creates life always for HIS reasons, and HE NEVER makes a mistake!
Writing this and being a Christian I find it very hypocritically that Senator Kerry being a self-declared "Catholic" can stand for partial birth abortion. Crushing the skull of a baby being born, by this time there is no benefits to saving the mother, so it has NOTHING to do with the mother's well being. What, is he going to stop being a Catholic for 4 yrs. while he is president then go back to being Catholic?? Why would he also support embryotic stemcell research in destroying lives in a possible chance of possibly healing another life? My comments have nothing to do with the Catholic religion, but, merely how Senator Kerry gives a distorted view of it as seen by his life and views.
If Senator Kerry was really serious about finding cures for diseases the first thing he should be doing is praying about it. There is also great research using adult stemcells, which doesn't take a life in a chance to cure another.
Also, Senator Kerry's views on how he is going to be warm and fuzzy and fix relations with the EU countrys. Europe has always had distorted liberal views. Canada and the US had to save them from themselves not once but twice. They let knowingly terrible things go on, until it comes back and bites them in the back. For example 1914-1918 and 1939-1944. Both times North America got them out of the mess the EU was in. Are 2 world wars not enough for Senator Kerry to get IT?? Senator Kerry's flavours of the day/week/election he will have to stand before God one day and be accountable for it all. I pray that he gets closer, repents, and humbles himself before God before that judgment day, as all of us will.
My prayers go out to good world leaders, like President Bush that stand on the solid rock everyday, and make decisions based on their eternity, not on the temporary here and now.
Just think of how many lives of babies would be saved to grow up in President's Bush America over Senator Kerry's. These are my personal comments and I don't know a lot, HOWEVER, I know the ONE who knows ALL!
In God the solid rock I stand, and trust, all other ground is sinking sand.
T. M. De Jong
Petrolia, Ontario
Canada
Thanks for your comments, Richard and T.M. On your last quote, T.M., I'll add that the old hymn is true. "All other ground is sinking sand." "All other ground" includes political leaders, even the ones you agree with.
Though we have a responsibility to vote biblically, we shouldn't put our faith in the government or its elected officials. Even a President with biblical character can't save people from their sin, and even the worst President can't take away Christ's ability to do so.
I am extremely disappointed in seeing you use CelticChristianTunes as a political endorsement stage.
That having been said, the story you relate as the one which, I'm guessing, you're trying to sway voters one way or the other with was described by Laura Bush and something for which no apology was required. In other words, it was a non-issue, a non-story.
I terms of which candidate is a more Godly person, I think in order to know that you would have to know a great deal about that person's past actions, the way they have treated their fellow human beings and how they have worked to help their fellow men and women throughout their life.
Short of that, you would truly have to know the person's heart and soul.
I have read numerous accounts of both candidate's actions, history and deeds in both the mainstream U.S. media, media sources outside of the US and from several "outside of the mainstream" sources. My decision goes squarely oposite the one you are "probably not doing a very good job of concealing".
If your posting had been a simple matter of suggesting criteria by which a vote should be cast, that would be one thing. However, by taking sides, you are going out of bounds, IMHO.
Implicit in your suggestion on who to vote for is the idea that a careful, prayerful decision can only lead to one candidate. Any other decision must be an incorrectly made one on the basis of biblical teachings and character traits. This, to me, is the most distressing commentary of all.
You offer a fine service through speading Christian Celtic music online. If you wish to include political statements in your musical service or webpage/blog, please identify it as such with a clear indication of what you are intending to turn the service/website into. I will happily find another service that will provide me with the music I like to listen to but who will respect me, my opinions and my individual relationship with God enough to not presume to know best how I should cast my vote.
...
fivecats, thanks for your comments. A few thoughts:
[Heinz Kerry's comment] was described by Laura Bush and something for which no apology was required. In other words, it was a non-issue, a non-story.I also thought that Bush's response was gracious and appropriate. Why should Teresa apologize for saying what she believes? My concern is not with what she said, but rather with the belief she unintentionally revealed through her statement.
I terms of which candidate is a more Godly person, I think in order to know that you would have to know a great deal about that person's past actions, the way they have treated their fellow human beings and how they have worked to help their fellow men and women throughout their life.
Short of that, you would truly have to know the person's heart and soul.I couldn't agree more. It is impossible to ultimately know the state of a person's heart, even a person you live with. However, the Bible instructs us to try (1 John 4:1) and gives us some clues as to what to look for (Gal 5:22-23, John 13:35).
The fact that it is difficult doesn't relieve us of the reponsibility.
My decision goes squarely oposite the one you are "probably not doing a very good job of concealing".Again, the fact people will come to different conclusions doesn't relieve them of the responsibility of making the call.
I must wonder however, whether you would have objected so vehemently to my post, had you come to the same conclusion that you think I have come to. Are there any people out there who agree with what they perceive as my opinion of the best candidate (which readers may notice I still haven't stated outright), who also take offense at my post?
Implicit in your suggestion on who to vote for is the idea that a careful, prayerful decision can only lead to one candidate. Any other decision must be an incorrectly made one on the basis of biblical teachings and character traits.I didn't imply that; you inferred it. Not everyone's understanding of biblical teaching is the same, so not everyone's decisions based on those teachings will be the same. That's OK, and discussion of those differences may educate us.
If you wish to include political statements in your musical service or webpage/blog, please identify it as such with a clear indication of what you are intending to turn the service/website into. I will happily find another service...who will respect me, my opinions and my individual relationship with God enough to not presume to know best how I should cast my vote.Wow, you got all that from my blog entry?
I'm not "turning" CelticChristianTunes.com into anything other than what it has been in the past, and saying that parents should be parents and that people should vote biblically hardly demonstrates a lack of respect for you. If I didn't respect you and your opinion, I'd have deleted your comment instead of responding to it. I haven't liked everything in all previous comments, but I let them stay as well.
In response to the remainder of your comment, in which you say things like "by taking sides, you are going out of bounds", "you're trying to sway voters", and "I am extremely disappointed in seeing you use CelticChristianTunes as a political endorsement stage", I wish to point out the following:
1. You are not the arbiter of what is "out of bounds".
2. Contrary to what you said, I have not endorsed any candidate or publicly taken sides.
3. CelticChristianTunes.com will not become a stage for political opinionating, though I'm mildly put off that others have done so in this thread. It is unlikely that I'll make any new blog entries about the political realm for the next 4 years or so.
4. I wish to sway voters, only into making a decision based on the Bible.
You offer a fine service through speading Christian Celtic music online.Thank you!
Oops! Sorry if it's difficult to tell where the quoted materials end and responses start in the previous comment above. In case it isn't clear. Italicized stuff is fivecats', and non-italicized stuff is mine.
I suppose I should modify my template to permit deletions.
Post a Comment
<< Home