Do Christians have to vote?

[For Life]

For a Bible-believing Christian to abstain from participation in the 2008 general election is to behave in a biblically disobedient nature. Oh sure there may not be as much to be excited about in this year's contest, but large issues do loom in the near future. If we as evangelicals remain silent as justices are seated on the Supreme Court, as our nation responds to jihadists who wish to injure. maim, and kill innocent people, or while our school curriculums begin to add homosexuality, bestiality, and every kind of sexual combination imaginable and refer to it as a family to the textbooks of our nation's school children we must understand that we play a part in allowing these things to happen.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough You have to click on his latest column, why not voting is not an optionI completely disagree with this guy. I don't think the bible commands christians to vote. I also don't think it is ok to vote for someone who you think is morally wrong, or will vote on issues in a way that you think is morally wrong. If you must vote, but don't like either of the two choices the media has chosen for you, write in your candidate. I think this is an unveiled tactic to try and make christians vote for one of the two candidates that the media chooses. That would be more against the bible than not voting, in my opinion.

 

[jamesrage]

(For Life;38341)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough You have to click on his latest column, why not voting is not an optionI completely disagree with this guy. I don't think the bible commands christians to vote. I also don't think it is ok to vote for someone who you think is morally wrong, or will vote on issues in a way that you think is morally wrong. If you must vote, but don't like either of the two choices the media has chosen for you, write in your candidate. I think this is an unveiled tactic to try and make christians vote for one of the two candidates that the media chooses. That would be more against the bible than not voting, in my opinion.
I do not believe christians have to vote.I do agree that christians shouldn't be voting for immoral candidates and other would seek to undermine Christian values and morals. These days religion is nothing more than a label that politicians slap on themselves to give a false appearance of being moral and fool people into voting for them because they claim to have the same faith. Look at some of the democrats such John Kerry,Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy who claim to be Catholic but yet they support/condone abortion,homo/transexuality,gay marriage and other sins.

 

[Iscariot]

(jamesrage;38342)
I do not believe christians have to vote.I do agree that christians shouldn't be voting for immoral candidates and other would seek to undermine Christian values and morals. These days religion is nothing more than a label that politicians slap on themselves to give a false appearance of being moral and fool people into voting for them because they claim to have the same faith. Look at some of the democrats such John Kerry,Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy who claim to be Catholic but yet they support/condone abortion,homo/transexuality,gay marriage and other sins.
Look at George W. Bush and his father...who have both started wars. What's the death count in Iraq at now? The DOCUMENTED CIVILLIAN death count is between 81,527-88,994, courtesy of iraqbodycount.org. But then again, starting wars and taking lives is something radical Christians have been doing throughout history, so you're probably alright with it...

 

[Dunamite]

Voting is an expression of our rights as citizens. If it was an obligation that every person vote as it is in some countries (Australia for example), then we could make a case that it would be wrong not to vote. However, that isn't the case in the U.S. and most democracies.Sometimes not voting makes as much as statement as voting. How many times must we hold our nose and vote for a candidate that is least bad before we act on our own and say they are all bad? We can either spoil the ballot intentionally or not vote to register our dissatisfaction.Also, Christians should follow the law except where it is a matter of conscience. If you are really principled, and Christians should be, then it is wrong to vote for someone whose actions we cannot condone. We are choosing someone to act on our behalf when we vote. Why choose someone who is not likely to act as you would just because we have that right? Civil disobedience is as much an obligation as voting when it is warranted. If it wasn't for civil disobedience many nations would not exist at all, including America.

 

[Reductio]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible never mentioned any voting in terms of governmental processes. Did Jesus ever advocate a coup d'etat so that his followers can vote?

 

[Dunamite]

(Reductio;39035)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible never mentioned any voting in terms of governmental processes. Did Jesus ever advocate a coup d'etat so that his followers can vote?
You are not wrong. Democracy is a fairly recent invention. In Rome and Greece only the wealthy could vote. Up until recent centuries voting was a privilege of men and the rich and not a universal right.The only reason it was made universal was because it had already evolved to the point where their privilege was guaranteed. They already had made the laws and institutions that enshrined their property rights. They made elections about money so that they could control the process.If you finance the candidates and control the media you can afford to be generous and give the masses the vote because the only vote that matters is who chooses who gets to run. To run for office you must first appeal to the rich. If you are opposed to their interests then you don't get a voice.Universal suffrage is a nice concept. It is little bearing on reality. The reality is that the same people run everything as have always run everything no matter who is elected. That you can count on.

 

[For Life]

(Dunamite;39148)
You are not wrong. Democracy is a fairly recent invention. In Rome and Greece only the wealthy could vote. Up until recent centuries voting was a privilege of men and the rich and not a universal right.The only reason it was made universal was because it had already evolved to the point where their privilege was guaranteed. They already had made the laws and institutions that enshrined their property rights. They made elections about money so that they could control the process.If you finance the candidates and control the media you can afford to be generous and give the masses the vote because the only vote that matters is who chooses who gets to run. To run for office you must first appeal to the rich. If you are opposed to their interests then you don't get a voice.Universal suffrage is a nice concept. It is little bearing on reality. The reality is that the same people run everything as have always run everything no matter who is elected. That you can count on.
Have you watched the movie "Bulworth" Dunamite? Great movie and it addresses the exact topic you just brought up. Doesn't that strike you funny that the people don't demand a non-politician as president? Or at the very least one who addresses this very topic. Maybe "Idiocracy" is not a work of fiction, maybe we are living it right now.

 

[Jerusalem Junkie]

No one has to vote just considered a patriotic duty so to speak. I vote but generally for the wrong candidate...............