Astronomy and Politics Through the Lens of Epistemology
How do We Know What We Know?
What is Our Method of Evaluating Truth?

As our society declines morally, an inevitable consequence is that more and more candidates in the “family values” camp--often Republican-- are going to be noticed with moral failures in their backgrounds.  As we contemplate the recent epidemic of abuse of women in both parties, the question here is, how should we support issues of faith in the way we vote?  Based on these trends, it is high time that Christians re-think their approach to voting decisions.  What does one do when the candidate of the traditional family values camp has serious moral failures and the opposite party promotes government policies inconsistent with those faith-based moral values?  In cases like this, faith voters will be increasingly forced to think outside of, for example, the evangelical box.

​

In times past, Christians and many Orthodox and Messianic Jews have voted via the following sequence of reasoning: First, people have looked at a candidate’s personal moral character, philosophy, and/or religious affiliation as a basis for their likely voting from a moral perspective.  Then they vote on that assumption combined with the candidate’s basic moral arguments on issues and policies. However, since the days of the Roe V Wade decision, legalizing abortion, again and again, we have witnessed people of high moral values, sometimes with a religious background, voting for policies promoting infant genocide. So, the question here is, are we entering a dark time where people with a seriously questionable moral character can be, in certain specific circumstances, more likely to vote in favor of moral governmental legislation and judicial decisions? Note that I said in very specific situations like Donald Trump and possibly Judge Roy Moore.

​

So, what are the Biblical values should Christians use to assess the moral role of government in any democratic country?  Romans 13:1-7 forms the basis for an evaluation of people running for public office since that passage outlines the role for good governmental leaders.  For brevity, let me quote verses 3 and 4:

 

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

​

Now, one obvious fact in this passage is that good and evil exists and that government can have to ability to discern it.  Yet, the striking thing about this declaration in this letter to the Romans from the Apostle Paul is that the entire Roman government was 100% Pagan at this time.  Because of that, Paul’s admonition is a recognition that even pagans can discern good and evil in society.  For example, the Roman emperor during this time of writing was Claudius (Acts 11:28, 18:2, 23:26) who was comparatively tame for a Roman Emperor.  Still, is there any believer on this planet who thinks that Claudius was the moral equivalent of a Baptist Sunday School teacher?!!?  Yet he is addressed in this passage as a minister of God!!!  Does anyone seriously think either Donald Trump or Roy Moore as bad as the Roman emperor Claudius?  So, if one wants to discern how bad one’s moral lifestyle could be and yet be Biblically qualified for rewarding good and punishing evil in society, I would answer that this way.  To discern good and evil, I suppose we might have to eventually settle for a notch above the moral scale of Claudius as a worse case bottom line (if and only if there is no better practical/moral choice)!! 

​

Before the last presidential election, Franklin Graham zeroed in on part of the answer I am suggesting here.   When asked what personality was best for president, he responded to vote on the government policies, not the personalities of Clinton or Trump.  Abortion, for example, involve policies of good and evil.

​

So, let’s take the choice between Doug Jones versus Roy Moore as a case in point.  In the case of Doug Jones, we seem to have no sexual allegations against him.  However, Doug Jones supports and defends the genocide of abortion.  He denies this by saying he merely in favor of a “woman’s right to choose” (Ref.   Jones Admits He Supports Late Term Abortions). Don’t be fooled by what this means.  It means that tragically desperate and uninformed women and their lawyered up doctors will continue to be protected when they dismember the unborn while they are still alive and yet dependent on the mother.  See images of a 19 week old baby in the womb who Doug Jones would allow to be dismembered under his abortion policies.

​

On the other hand, despite the latest accusations by nine women, Judge Roy Moore has a record at the cutting-edge forefront of protecting the “right to life” among the unborn.  Donald Trump’s efforts to do the same are totally dependent on maintaining his small majority of Republicans in the Senate.  Because the Republican majority in the Senate is so tiny, it only takes 1 or 2 defecting senators to sabotage any attempts by the Republicans with any such pro-life laws, bills, or amendments.  The defeat of the health care bill with its pro-life provisions is only one such example. 

So, the only way to fight against the genocide of abortion is to vote against Doug Jones and for Roy More, regardless of what you think of his accusers.  If one still chooses to vote for Doug Jones, pro-life efforts in the Senate will be defeated!

 

Now, from this single-issue comparison, one might assume that I am a one-issue advocate.  Yet, Moore campaigns on (1) Repealing Obama-Care, (2) Stopping Judicial Tyranny, (3) Defend what many Christians do not know are our rights originating in the Bible and reflected in our Constitution.