Follow by Email

Friday, August 31, 2012

More On Romney and Muddled Thinking

My last post has been the impetus for much discussion, which prompts me to voice additional observations.

1.  Many will vote for Romney as the lesser of evils because Obama, they believe, will run our country into the ground in the next four years. As far as the outcome of the election is concerned, I have it on good authority, the testimony of redemptive history, that the legitimizing of blasphemy has precedence for economic consequences and social turmoil, more than anything that might result from Obama-care and all the rest. That is something that should be considered by those who would make this election a matter of economics and social concern.  Pragmatism would seem to side with not voting for Romney, especially given his moderate tendencies that in principle are no different, just less consistent, than Obama's.
1a. It hasn’t occurred to many that the spiritual decay of this land has paved the way for the social decay we now find normal. Fixing our economic thinking and all the rest is a mere band aid at best. At the heart of the problem is the question, How might we provide a climate in which God is honored given the current state of affairs? Do we seek God's good pleasure by voting for Romney? Do we say no to a heretical, blaspheming candidate, or do we elect him as the savior of this land? Enough is enough, but unfortunately the conservative media and the GOP leadership have evangelicals so scared of Obama that the masses would sooner support a cult leader with the hope of him getting us out of the jam that spiritual infidelity got us into in the first place. The irony is killing me.
2. People are quick to claim the sovereignty of God and divine election as reason not to be terribly concerned with an attack on the gospel, but not so willing to take such a fatalistic, hyper-Calvinistic approach when dealing with socialistic / economic concerns. In other words, many think as though God will take care of protecting the elect but we humans must fight against the evils of social agendas that are un-American. What is obviously skewed in such thinking is the fact that God no less decrees salvation than he does societal decay. So any appeal to divine sovereignty begs the question of where one’s efforts and priorities should be.
3. There is a common sentiment regarding voting against one’s favorite candidate that when voiced is more manipulative than valid. That being, “A non-vote is a vote for Obama.”  During the last presidential election, if a person who was intending to vote for Obama was prevented from doing so by traffic on the freeway, he would not have voted. Would that non-vote have been a vote for Obama? Obviously not, for nothing would have been gained by Obama. In fact, something would have been lost - the vote of the hindered voter. Now if it is said that the non-vote would have been a vote for McCain, then in a sense that would be right, but such an observation would be based upon a premise pertaining to the intention of the voter. Indeed, McCain would have gained something by such a traffic-providence, for the hindrance of an Obama voter to vote would have closed the gap of the race by one vote in favor of McCain. The point should be apparent. For a non-vote in this election to be regarded as vote for Obama presupposes that the person not voting would have voted for Romney if he could, but that’s obviously false because the person in view would not be voting because he had no intention of voting for Romney (or anyone else). When the voter’s will and not some external providence prevents him from voting, it is mathematically absurd and philosophically fallacious to claim that the non-vote would have been cast in any direction.

4. We live in a pluralistic, non-Christian nation. Accordingly, voting for the lesser of perceived evils is permissible. My concern, as I wrote earlier, is what one will consider as data and how he evaluates that which he finds relevant.
Free Website Counter


Nick said...

Sadly, you will receive a lot of flak for this post, but it is the bitter medicine that people need to hear and be awoken to.

I am thankful that at least some people are alert enough to recognize that an anti-christ religion is unacceptable for Christians.

Reformed Apologist said...

Hi Nick,

I haven't received any flack as yet. Even to the contrary, I think that some with a "GOP or bust" mindset have begun to pause to reconsider some things. Whether they actually abstain from voting for Romney is another matter.

Anonymous said...

One of the single most important factors in play this election cycle is the future makeup of the US Supreme Court. President Obama has already made two ‘liberal’ appointments to the USSC. There is a very real possibility that the winner of the 2012 Presidential election will nominate as few as 1 and as many as 3 Justices. Remember, Justice Ginsberg is 79 years old and in failing health, while Justices Kennedy and Scalia are 76 years old.

Reformed Apologist said...

That's a fear card we've bought into. At the very least, the last tie breaker seems to detract from that popular sentiment. In any case, conservative evangelicals have settled for inferior candidates for so long that the GOP can now unashamedly offer a moderate anti Christ and people will buy the product. So much for accepting the party's candidate in the spirit of slowing down the demise.

Why do you suppose that the GOP candidates get worse and worse, lock step with the democratic party's candidate? It is because suckers like us accept them for frothy reasons like SC justices. Both parties are of the same hypocrisy and slouching toward Gomorrah.

Anonymous said...

I couldn't figure out how to sign my name to the 11:00AM comment, but so you know, it's me, brother Joe. I absolutely appreciate the points you raise in your two blogs regarding the election of a Mormon. As always, you bring to mind things well worth considering. You’ve given me reason to pause and rethink.

I won't argue that there would be a significant change in the near-term economic outlook whether Obama or Romney is elected. But my point was and is that the election of a President has an effect into the future far beyond the term they serve and the policies they advance, through the lifetime appointments of Justices to the SC. (2 current SC Justices were appointed by Ronald Reagan.) I was simply pointing out that although no man knows for sure who either would appoint in the future, Obama, if re-elected, could very well shift the balance of the Court to one that is decidedly ‘liberal’, given the two appointments he’s already made.

Reformed Apologist said...

Hey Joe
I think I get that, which is why I can appreciate you making the point. I just don't find those considerations persuasive. I don't fault the conclusion people draw. My concern is whether the data and ramifications are being properly weighed.

Reformed Apologist said...

Ps I have little doubt you have not drunk the GOP Kool aid