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

A Current Problem for Faith Based Voters

​

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 then contemplate the recent epidemic of abuse of women in both parties, the question here is, how should we then 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 my point here is in very specific situations like with Donald Trump and possibly Judge Roy Moore.

 

The principle criteria for Good government for New Testament believers

​

So, what are the Biblical values, Christians for example, should use to assess the moral role of government in any democratic country?  Romans 13:1-7 forms the "preeminent" 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 the good and evil do exist.  That is evident all over the scriptures, whether it be from the Torah, Tanakh or New Testament revelations, not just in this passage!  Also obvious from the\is NT passage, is that government can and does have the ability to discern evil behavior, “bring wrath” on it, and punish it with the sword.  We should be voting to make sure our government takes on this Biblical role.  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 that time.  Because of that fact, 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 are as bad as the Roman emperor Claudius?  So, if one wants to discern how bad a candidate’s moral lifestyle could be and yet be Biblically qualified for rewarding good and punishing evil in society, I would answer that this way.  For a candidate 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)!!  After all, with either Trump or Moore we eventually had no other choice.

 

A Franklin Graham insight

​

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, involved policies of good and evil.

​

Moore vs Jones

​

So, let’s take the past choice between Doug Jones versus Roy Moore as a case in point.  In the case of Doug Jones, we seemed to have had no sexual allegations against him.  However, Doug Jones, like almost every other Democratic candidate, supported and defended the genocide of abortion.  He denies this by saying he merely favored of a “woman’s right to choose” (see Doug Jones position on abortion).  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 that Doug Jones would allow to be dismembered under his abortion policies.

 

A forgotten Christian Value

​

On the other hand, despite the latest accusations by nine women, Judge Roy Moore had 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.  Keep in mind also, that Doug Jones current ethical position on abortion is current and admitted by the candidate himself, whereas the accusations against Roy More, however suspicious, were not substantiated and are some 38 to 40 years old. So, the only way to fight against the genocide of abortion would have been to vote against Doug Jones and for Roy More, regardless of what you think of his accusers.  Moore’s defeat greatly impairs the struggle to encourage government to take on its Biblical role as a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

 

Now, from this single-issue comparison, one might assume that I am a one-issue advocate.  Yet, Moore campaigned 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.  Now if you might think that Doug Jones would have supported any of these, I will fall down screaming with the Minions.

 

 

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

Roy Moore’s problem

​

It is not my intent here to minimize the accusations against Roy Moore.    Given the charges of his accusers, there was much there to raise the alarms of “faith based voters”.  One of the last women interviewed was quite impressive to me and really moving on TV.   But sounding very convincing and being truthful can be two different things.  Yet, Judge Moore had an outstand reputation as a committed Christian and government worker standing up for religious rights.  I know because I followed him closely.  That glowing reputation was only challenged in recent weeks before the election!  In that regard, there is another great Biblical deception going forward at full speed in the news media which needs to be recognized here.  The great lie is that Moore's accusers had no possible reason or motive to lie.  That is a patently false lie itself.  Sin is an equal opportunity employer among both men and women.  Lies among either gender can be often motivated by monetary bribes and/or political philosophy. 

 

For all have sinned

​

Yet another piece of related Christian naiveté regarding the nature of evil has been advanced as follows: “If Moore’s accusers were singular, then we might have reason to question the accusation.  But because there are nine, we know he is guilty.”  This position not only assumes the inherent goodness of the accusers, but it negates the following possibility.   Yet, very determined political activists who wish to redefine good and evil in their own governmental eyes, have a big political motive to dig up false dirt and pay off any number of willing accusers of righteous Jewish or Christian and other righteous religious candidates.  Do I know this has happened?  No, but given the declining moral state of our nation, I would be a fool not to acknowledge that it is highly likely in either states like Alabama or future national elections.  When I see people screaming in hate filled rhetoric or entertaining the idea of blowing up the White House or threatening any political leader, I would be far beyond naïve not to acknowledge there are many-many people with that sinful potential.  That is the very reason the 9th commandment was written, (cf. Ex 20:16, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.").  Likewise in another passage,  Ex 23:1, "Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness."  Is there anyone prepared to acknowledge that lying for ill-gotten gain occurred all the time in ancient Israel, but could never be executed today in an organized effort with others? Those who think in this naïve mode have not read the New Testament revelation that Rom 3:23, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" or 1 Ki 8:46, "If they sin against Thee - for there is no man that sinneth not..." (JPS), It blows my mind to thing that so many Christians are becoming aware that there is a rising moral problem in our own ranks, yet their trust in government is so strong that mass slander and sin in the election process is still beyond their comprehension.  Christians are also forgetting the principles of our governmental heritage like “due process” and “innocent until proven guilty” in rejecting Roy more without reflecting on his past character and record.  If you want to see an Intensive Bible study on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", click here.

 

But on the question of the governments role of punishing evil behavior and encouraging good behavior, this value goes far-far beyond the values of Donald Trump, Roy Moore or even the Republican Party.  Philosophically there is a pre-disposition to acknowledge good and evil among conservatives and most often Republicans.  That is far less common among Democrats who are far more philosophically driven by ethical concepts like moral relativism or situational ethics or other similar ethical philosophies which downplay concepts of “good and evil”.  This is a critical difference with most religious traditions in the US, which are principally based on the concepts of good and evil as defined in the Jewish Torah & Tanakh, otherwise known to Christians as the Old Testament.  Many of those values of good and evil are also reflected in the Christian New Testament.

 

In that regard, during the 2014 election, I went to hear a debate by my congregational candidates although the democrat unfortunately dropped out.  So, I asked the Republican candidate the following two philosophical questions.  “Do you acknowledge evil behavior as reality in the world today?  Secondly, do you believe the government has the role of recognizing and punishing evil in both domestic and foreign policy?  Her answer was an unqualified YES.  She went further to say she played a role in punishing evil when she was the commander of an A-10 attack aircraft squadron in Iraq.  Her position on good and evil was as strong as I have witnessed anywhere.  Yet when I have asked Democrats the same questions on evil, I have universally received either a denial of that ethical construct, recognition of evil but with a denial that government has the ability to define it, or a far more nuanced position with various denials about where and how the government could employ the ethical construct of evil.  For Christians, the recognition of evil behavior, is a foundational value preceding the doctrine of salvation.  What do Christians who deny evil think that salvation and Christ’s death on the Cross were for? ?  Do they deny the governments role in punishing evil?

 

Recognition of Religious Diversity

​

Now that does not mean that I do not fully recognize that there are Democrats that accept the idea of evil behavior or that there are Democratic positions some Christian share. I both recognize and respect both of those facts.  But, dealing with evil is the most important doctrine in scripture with respect to the role of government.  It is also a critical presupposition to the doctrine of salvation and to victory over sin.  For that reason, Christians are commonly loyal to Trump given his powerful recognition of good and evil, despite his past lamentable behavior or his actions since he was elected.  Since the election, I have been blown away and surprised at how powerfully Trump recognizes good and evil and how willing he is to apply these values in his governmental reasoning and policies.

 

I was a rabid never Trump or Hillary advocate, but I was drug kicking and screaming every inch of the way before the last presidential election in coming to a similar conviction about Donald Trump.  In fact, in Trump’s case we had video proof testifying to testifying to past nature of his lifestyle.  But at that time, I was thinking more in terms of the qualifications of choosing a pastor, not a commander and chief.  The Biblical qualifications of a Church pastor are not the Biblical qualifications for a head of state.  Christians are mistaken for approaching voting in this manner.  There can be no compromise that the “Great Commission” is the most import calling in Christianity (Matt 28:16-20).  Yet a subordinate priority for Christians is to be salt and light in the world around them (Matt 5:13-16).  I believe our influence on government is part of that responsibility.  It was Franklin Graham that started me thinking in terms voting for the candidate’s policies, not their personalities.  I believe that is an important reason for many Christians (not all) who do actively support Donald Trump.  

 

See also links below for links which are either directly or indirectly related to the information on this subject.