“The Lord has established His throne in Heaven and His kingdom rules over all.”
Psalm 103:19
The good news is, on November 7, 2012, God will still be God and His kingdom will still rule over all. The bad news is…come November 7, this country will have either reelected a man and in effect endorsed a platform that affirms same-sex marriage or will have elected a President who for the first time in American history ascribes to a “Bible” that teaches that “blackness of skin” is a curse. Consequently, I find both candidates totally unacceptable. Whoever wins on November 6, I will accept as the appointment of the Sovereign God, pray for that individual, hold in high regard the office that they hold and consequently deeply respect the man in the office—no matter which candidate it is (Romans 13:1).
To set the record straight, I have never told the congregation, that I’m privileged to pastor, not to vote. I never reported that to Rachel Zoll, the Associated Press reporter, who interviewed me on this subject. I did say to Rachel Zoll (Associated Press) that I do not plan to vote for the Office of the President. I will vote down line. But I cannot with a clear conscience cast a ballot for President Obama or Governor Romney given their beliefs that are diametrically in opposition to the inerrant and infallible Word of God. I will vote down line in the early voting and literally plan to go fishing on Election Day. I told the Cornerstone congregation that I would respect whatever decision they made regarding voting. But as for me and my house, to vote in favor of President Obama is to violate Romans 1:32, that declares you cannot approve of those who approve of homosexuality. In my personal opinion, to vote for Mitt Romney, given the unrepentant, unapologetic racist views of the Mormon “Bibles”—as a Black man—would be like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders. Therefore, I choose to vote for neither. But if either publically changed their minds before November 6, I will change my mind and vote for one of them.
There will be those who will consider me a one-issue voter to which I will plead guilty. Major decisions are often made on major matters based on one-issue. People are hired and fired sometimes based on one-issue. People have surgeries based on one-issue. People marry and divorce over one-issue. People were enslaved based on one-issue.
This article was originally posted at Pastor McKissic’s personal blog.
President Obama has endorsed changing five-thousand years of marital history in every civilized country of the world based on—one issue: “Marriage equality” as he labels it. Same-sex marriage is not marriage equality, it is moral insanity. Governor Mitt Romney was given an opportunity by Tim Russert in 2008 to distance himself from the history and teaching of the Mormon Church over one issue: The Mormon “Bible” verses that teach Black people are “loathsome,” “despised” and “cursed.” The Mormon Church would not allow my sister to enter into certain parts of the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, Utah, several years ago, while allowing her Anglo colleagues to enter part of the Tabernacle she was forbidden to enter, over one issue: Her “Black” skin color. Pleeeze, don’t tell me I cannot vote over—one issue. The Mormons have never recanted of the racist teachings in their Bibles—“The Pearl of Great Price,” The Book of Mormons, Doctrines and Covenants.
At the end of the day my hope is not in Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. “My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus Name. On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand.”
America went to war with Afghanistan over one issue. Appellant judges have overturned lower court judges over—one issue. To vote for Romney, I would have to violate my race and my right mind. To vote for Obama, I would have to violate my conscience, convictions and faith. I can do neither. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To violate conscience is neither right nor safe. “God help me, here I stand.” Thus said Martin Luther, and I agree.
Pastor McKissic does a good job of speaking for my personal dilemma in this presidential election. I cannot support either candidate with a clear conscious. If I am able to vote for Paul Ryan without voting for Mitt Romney I will, but I will not vote for Governor Romney. And I also will vote further down the ballot for other offices in this election.
Among my concerns is that strong evangelical support of Romney will appear to the world that Evangelical Christians are endorsing a Mormon candidate and thus the Mormon religion as a part of the larger Christian community. After all, Mormonism presents itself that way even if we know that is a lie. It will provide additional impetus for Mormon evangelism even among Baptist laity and I predict an uptick in Mormon converts in the US and abroad if Romney is elected. We each have to follow our conscious where we believe God is leading us in this election and I will not judge anyone for their choice. But I see no good choice except to trust that our sovereign God will still be in control even if I don’t fully understand His design regarding this question.
And like Pastor McKissic I will pray for whoever wins. I have done a poor job of that and I have been convicted about this for a while now. I can and shall do better.
Obama invalidated himself with his stance on abortion. His stance on homosexuality has only deepened his disqualification. I’m not particularly happy with Romney’s own abortion stance due to his rape exception, but I see no reason to believe that Romney is racist or views any particular skin color as being a curse. I’ll cringe a bit when I vote for him, but will vote for him all the same.
Chris,
Do you believe Romney should disavow his racist Bible? Are you comfortable voting for a man whose Bible teaches that Blacks are cursed?
Does Romney’s stand on the poor and the “47 per cent” that he really doesn’t care about invalidate him?
Dwight
Dwight,
“the “47 per cent” that he really doesn’t care about”
That is not what he said in context.
Dwight,
I think Romney’s recently released comments were rather accurate (if perhaps hyperbolic), so I don’t have a problem with them. As for the Mormon text, I’m more interested in what Romney himself says and believes about race.
Chris,
If you believe his statement was accurate that explains the huge dichotomy between the National Baptist Convention and the SBC. If I were a betting man, I would be willing to bet that not one NBC pastor would believe Romney’s comments were accurate. I will go a step further. I don’t believe that you will find one Black SBC pastor who believe Romney’s comments are accurate. An interesting study would be: why is there a huge disconnect between what White pastors and Black pastors believe about the accuracy of Romney’s remarks. However, I respect your right to your beliefs.
Chris: Romney is a politician who wants to win. Do you really think he is going to be honest(ever) about his true belief. The Mormon book teaches that blacks are a curse. I think you know just from advertisements if nothing else how a Mormon views the book of Mormon. Come on now.
Debbie,
I’ve known a handful of Mormons who were not politicians. Never knew one of them to be racist.
I actually thought the Mormon “church” had repudiated that stance, but I may be wrong.
Actually, I believe Mitt Romney is a decent family man, as is Barak Obama. I also believe that (1) Romney knows very, VERY little about how average working people, those (like me) who live payday to payday, live. And (2) I think he wants to be President so much that he is willing to espouse virtually any position that he thinks will get him the most votes. Hence he was a Teddy Kennedy liberal when he ran against Kennedy for senate in Mass. way back when, was a moderate when he ran for governor of Mass., then when the Tea Party gained a significant say in the GOP recently, he had an epiphony and became anti-abortion. Problem is: I don’t know what he really believes. Plus mostly because of (1), ( and this is 3) I don’t really trust him to take care of the poor who have little or no voice in our society. Although it is not a good conservative thing to admit, Jesus did say, “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”
John
Chris, Romney’s comments on the 47 percent were complete inaccurate. They were an outright falsehood and the conclusions and applications he draws from them are appalling and are in no way the Conservative position on the size of government, dependency, poverty, or social programs. We aren’t even talking about the Church. His views are not even Conservative views. Here are the facts on the 47% from the National Review, The Freeloader Myth by Romesh Ponnuru: http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/283265
But Chris, he’s a Mormon so that PROVES he’s racist.
(Man, someone needs to come up with a sarcasm font, srsly)
Joe,
Would you please answer the question: do you believe Romney should disavow his racist Bible? Should the Mormon Church publicly apologize for not allowing Blacks to enter certain parts of the Mormon Tabernacle–even while their Anglo colleagues(while all are touring together are allowed access), but the Black person is told to wait outside?
I don’t expect him to comment on anything related to the Mormon church whatsoever.
I do think the Mormon church ought to address that because I find any church that teaches or has taught that black people are cursed to be repugnant.
Really hoping your “beloved president” loses this November. But what I wish more is that a 3rd party or write in candidate was an actual option since I don’t have any real interest in voting for Romney but I’m going to vote against Obama.
Dwight,
What if someone asked you to “disavow” the Old TEstament because of its violence (dash babies heads against the stone) or its polygamy (David’s many wives)?
This charge is raised often by those “hostile” (as you are with Romney) to the Christian faith.
There is of course an answer to this that defends the O.T. The Mormon’s also have a polemic to deal with this issue. While I do not agree with the Mormon church’s doctrine or polemics, I do not think it is altogether fair for you to accuse Romney or the Mormon church with being racist — at this point in their progressive church history.
There is a fundamental issue of fairness that your myopic approach to racism violates in my opinion. I do not like it when people accuse me of supporting the Crusades, baby killing, stoning homosexuals, and the list goes on and on.
The fundamental issue that you choose to ignore because of your presuppostions is that Mormon theology is flexible and they view the matter as having been dealt with.
Again, I’m no fan of Mormonism in any way shape or form. I am a fan of fundamental fairness in the discussion of comparative religion.
You obviously have an axe to grind which makes you seem strident and unfair in this regard.
You’re a priori approach to this issue makes it awkward for me to partner with you in eliminating racism anywhere and everywhere. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Frank L.
If someone ask me to disavow the OT because of the passages that you referenced, I would take them to Romans 15: 4 and show them that the OT is “for our learning,”and then show them what we can learn from those passages. I would also show them the NT principles corresponding to those passages and make a beeline to the gospel message and show them Jesus. Thanks for asking.
Dwight,
And, after several discussions with Mormon scholars, they would give a similar answer concerning the issue of blacks in their church, though of course not with the same authority we have as believers.
I mentioned that you could answer the question with a polemical interpretation. That was my point–so do MOrmons. Therefore, it is not fair for you to use a tactic to defend your faith and deny others that same right.
That was my point.
Frank L.,
There is no possible interpretation that a Mormon “schloar” could give me that would be satisfactory, sensible, and aligned with or affirmed in our Bible, that I could or would accept.
I was on the phone today with a Black Mormon quite learned in their text(s). He attempted to do the very thing you mentioned. He tried to use the words “black..skin” in
Lamentations 5: 10 and equate or parallel that text and a passage in Job with the Mormon racist text. Nice try on his part. But the difference in the use of the words “black…skin” in the Lamentation text and the Job passage is this: there were no negative references or connations associated with the “black…skin ” text in the passages cited in our Bible, but there were negative references cited an associated with the text in the passages cited in thre Mormon “bibles.” Therefore, his polemic didn’t fit. I hope Mormon scholarship can come up with something far better than what this gentleman came up with.
Dwight,
I do appreciate the courage you have shown here in this conversation. I must admit that I disagree with you, but you’ve stuck to your guns and I respect that immensely. That being said, you don’t need my approval or anyone else’s only God’s.
Dwight,
Either you are not understanding my argument or purposely choose to misunderstand it to further your conclusion.
I’ve never suggested that a Mormon could offer a Biblically sound interpretation for their views. I said the exact opposite–I think at least twice.
For one, your learned Black Mormon did not give the answer that a Mormon scholar gives–at least not the ones I’ve spoken with.
Just as you claim the troublesome texts of the O.T. are part of a “learning time” (your words), the Mormon scholar would give a similar answer to the texts to which you want to pin racism on the collar of Romney.
That is fundamentally unfair.
Mitt Romney is NOT a racist by any way in which someone in the general pubic–not blinded by a myopic presupposition–would claim.
His father marched for Civil Rights. Romney has NEVER (to my knowledge) said, written, or had attributed to him anything racists.
The MOrmon passages to which you refer are no more guiding to his life or the life of a Mormon than the troublesome texts are to the Christian.
That does not mean Mormonism is correct, but you should be fundamentally fair in allowing them to do with their previous revelation what you do with yours.
Again, I’m not arguing for the truth of Mormonism, just fundamental fairness in not attributing something to a man without any evidence whatsoever.
I don’t think you would appreciate that if someone did that to you.
It also makes your position look weak and lack credibility if it is fundamentally unfair. I think that hurts Christianity and I do not think it will help battle racism.
Debbie,
To answer your question it banned partial birth abortion and if it keeps just one infant from being partially born and having their brains sucked out, I would say that’s a heck of a lot. Sorry but I just disagree with you on this one.
Frank L.,
The difference is that as Christians, we would say that the Old Testament is not our standard. One might say it was superceded by the New, another that it was a further revelation, still another that it was a different dispensation, but all would agree that exegetical gymnastics are unnecessary to cover it up. To Mormons, the Book of Mormon is the supreme revelation of God, and other forms, including the Pearl of Great Price. The Book of Covenants, and our Bible are lesser revelations, true only so far as they do not contradict the Book of Mormon.
John
Of course each of us has his or her own reasons of conscience on these matters. I respect Dwight’s decision.
I also agree with Chris though. I am firmly anti-abortion and could never vote for Obama if for no other reason, though there are many reasons I would not vote for him. He is an all around disaster of a president. I owe Jimmy Carter an apology for ever saying that he was the worst president ever.
I’ll cringe a bit but will cast my vote for Romney. I have no reason to think he is a racist.
I too will hold my nose and vote for Romney. It’s isn’t so much a vote FOR Romney as it is AGAINST Obama.
As citizens of what was once a most blessed country, if we stand back and do nothing, we will get what we deserve.
James White has some good teachings on this at AOMIN.
When Jesus endorsed government as God-given do you think He was unaware that we will be confronted with alternatives that we dislike? To vote for the lesser of two evils is to vote to lessen evil. Merely walking away is a cop out and you will deserve the government you get.
Walt,
To vote for the lesser of two evils is to still vote for evil.
Dwight
The only alternative would be to almost always abstain from voting.
Sometimes the alternative route is the best route. This, I believe, is one of those times.
Dwight
Sometimes it is just a detour to a dead end.
So your “strategy” is to enable the greater evil to triumph by doing nothing to resist it?
I am perfectly willing to trust the sovereignty of God in this decision, and to be at peace with the outcome.
What will you say to Christ at the Judgment about failing to oppose the slaughter of the innocent unborn when you had the ability to do so?
Walt,
When did I fail to oppose the slaughter of the innocent unborn? If you are implying that to not vote is doing this, you have just provided me with the best example of hyperbole that I’ve ever seen. I strongly oppose abortion, and have done so since the early days of my ministry.
Dwight
So, oppose the candidate that supports this abomination.
Walt, I suspect Christ will say the same thing to Dwight that he will say to you after you vote for Romney and Romney proceeds to do what every other Republican President has done since Roe v Wade regarding abortion – nothing. It doesn’t matter where they “stand” on the issue if their “stand” proves to have no “legs.”
Paul,
I’m personally sick of seeing comments like this because they are patently false. I suppose the partial birth abortion ban equals nothing in your estimation?
Dwight,
Would you then agree that God is equally sovereign to use people to accomplish the task of putting in office the person God wants?
I do not think you are necessarily taking the high road by not voting for one of the choices anymore than the person voting is taking the high road.
I don’t think you can claim exclusive rights to God’s sovereignty in supporting your position.
John, yes, virtually nothing. That law bans a particular procedure. Just look up the Wikipedia article on the subject and read the final paragraph. Those who would perform that “procedure” are more than willing and able to find ways around violating the law while accomplishing the intended goal.
Paul,
Just because the abortionists find ways around the law doesn’t mean that nothing has been done about abortion. Also, I am aware that it only bans a particular procedure, I would suppose that is why it’s called the partial birth abortion ban. Further, if even one life is saved by that ban I would suggest that characterizing that as virtually nothing is a little calloused.
John: Is abortion still legal or isn’t it? What exactly did the partial abortion ban do? Not a whole heck of a lot.
So call me calloused John. I’ll take the label. I have broad shoulders but facts are facts. Do some research on how this has changed. What has changed abortion has not been politics, but people doing leg work and hospitals who refuse to do abortions which there are several. I worked for one for four years.
Debbie,
If it weren’t for republicans there would be no hospitals with the right to refuse abortions.
I will gladly, with a completely clear conscience, vote against your “beloved president”. Besides, Romney being a Mormon doesn’t prove he’s a racist. And simply because he doesn’t repudiate something written in a mormon “scripture” also doesn’t mean he’s a racist. He may not care. He may figure that intelligent, reasonable human beings knkow something like that is pure garbage. Point to one racist statement he’s made. (crickets chirp)
Funny, most of the people I’ve heard advocate not voting for Romney are people who are strong supporters of “economic and social justice” (i.e. federal entitlement programs). Hmm, wonder if there’s something to that?
I appreciate greatly how Les began his comment, McKissic has thoughfully made a decision based on conviction and to degrade his decision is reactionary and unloving. The apostle James tells us to judge our brother in a critical and slanderous way is to not only judge him but to judge the law.
Whether you agree with McKissic’s conclusions or not, to chastise him for his convictions on what a disputable matter is an unChristian response. While I understand the fear and depth of emotion surrounding the issue, we cannot belittle a brother in Christ over a matter of conscience. If you want to lovingly challenge his convictions, do so charitably; but do not construct an artificial “high ground” from where you bite and devour a fellow heir of Christ.
I don’t usually speak about politics, but I don’t believe Romney’s magic underwear will get him a win in November. If he could just keep his mouth shut he would stand a better chance.
Thank you Mr McKissic,
You stated much of my position in your article. It has been interesting to see some Christian leaders do theological gymnastics trying to ok voting for a cult member whose cult diametrically opposes God. The pastor of 1st Baptist Dallas being one of those. Search YouTube for Dr. Jefferies and two contradicting You-tubes will say enough.
The DNC already has proven in the last election that most dems will vote for anybody they put up; case in point a candidate for the highest position in the US with no real business experience, no foreign policy experience and was in his first term in a national position. His resume basically was he is a lawyer, worked as a community organizer, served in the state house and was a freshman senator, that’s it. The Dems voted wholesale for someone with no experience to have the highest office of the land, with no firm details of what he was going to do. Thus, the DNC leaders proved that 95% of all Dems will vote for whoever they put up. So now we have for the very first time a DNC platform that includes “marriage equality” (homosexual marriage) and abortion at any time for any reason and the tax payer will pay for it. How and why did they do this all in one years convention? Clearly the leaders of the DNC learned they can do anything because the Dem voters will vote for them no matter what.
So this leads me here; those Christians who say we must now vote for Romney are preparing to tell the RNC the exact same thing the Dem voters told the DNC in 08’…put anyone up and we will vote for them. If the 60 million Christians vote for Romney, the message will be “just give us someone who can give lip service to a few moral points and we will vote for them, cult members and all. I for one plan on sending a message, I will write in a name if you do not give me someone worthy to be voted for. Will i be lonely in my chosen position? Yea, probably so except for one little thing; I plan on siding with God. So I won’t be to lonely. Will I be wasting my vote, nope, because I plan on showing by my actions (to my Creator) that I would rather stand alone and a loser in a human race than to side with willful evil. I Hope 59million plus other Christians will join me. Now 60 million Christians writing in a candidate for president would make the RNC run to the drawing board. Robert E. Lee once said; “It is better to suffer evil than to commit it”
Some things are just funny and can’t be denied as such.
In the comment thread of a post written by Dwight McKissic about a presidential candidate who is part of a religious group whose guide book contains racist ideologies, Alan Davis quotes Robert E. Lee.
Now, that is just funny and can only happen in the Baptist Blog World.
Hey CB,
Yes I quoted R.E. Lee. Lee freed all his slaves before the emancipation (out of conviction) and saw that each slave received training to make it in the world. On numerous occasions he pleaded privately with Jefferson Davis to free the slaves in the south but to no avail. Lee wrote numerous correspondence with influential leaders in the South to emancipate the slaves and to give training for success in the work world.
To point out as a side note of the integrity of General Lee he also issued general order #53 which ordered all men under his control to not burn private homes, barns and business’s when they took the war to the North in 1862 unlike the way the South had been treated by the official Army of the North with the total ransacking of community leaving behind nothing but burnt homes and pillaged entire communities.
Thanks for the response,
Alan
Alan Davis,
I do not doubt the Christian character of Robert E. Lee, not that of many members of his family. I am familiar, believe me.
My point was that it was funny that you quoted him in this specific thread due to content. And it was…..funny, that is. And anyone with any sense of humor whatsoever who does not determine all things from a “politically correct” perspective will have to admit it was/is funny.
True CB, I actually had not thought of it till you pointed it out.
Alan
Dwight, Alan, C. B., others,
I know this is off topic, but since Alan and C. B. at least, referenced it, I have a question.
Not trying to start an argument, just want your opinions.
1. Is it OK today in the modern day American Christian world to quote men like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, etc.? This means to quote them in sermons and writing. (For those who skipped history class, these were Confederate or Southern leaders in the Civil War.)
2. Is it ok to quote them if you also quote men like Abraham Lincoln, U. S. Grant, Frederick Douglass…?
David R. Brumbelow
David,
Your comment/question(#47) is very insightful, and reflects your heart to be sensitive to a diverse audience. The persons that you mentioned who were Confederates can and should be quoted, as you deem that they are saying something quote-worthy. You are correct in my judgement: when they are quoted, you either have to acknowledge the value of his quote, while acknowledging the tremendously poor judgement displayed as being a slaveholder and Confederate, or often quote persons such as the ones you mentioned(Douglas and Grant) to either counterbalance the comments of the Confederates, or demonstrate a similar appreciation for persons opposite of the slave holding Confederates.
David R. Brumbelow,
When I was a pagan, I often quoted U.S. Grant, especially is describing an enemy. His descriptions of enemies or people he did not like were, shall we say, colorful.
Upon becoming a follower of Christ, I did begin to quote men like Lee and Jackson, men of deep faith and conviction.
Come to think of it, when I was lost, I also quoted Longstreet rather often. He also, was “colorful.”
Seriously, I can see no wrong in quoting Lee and Jackson when talking about faith in Christ. True history records both men as very devoted to their faith in Christ and to their families. I will say that war brings out the best and worst of most men. That is, if they are truly committed to Christ and not cowards.
Dwight McKissic,
How was that for insightful and sensitive of heart to a “diverse audience.” 😉
I would agree we should be aware of some sensitivity. However I have no problem quoting men from the South. Also have no problem quoting men from the North. Have done so from both, just try to be careful to use men with known faith in Christ.
Alan Davis
Thanks for your replies.
Someday maybe we will have a book of quotes by C. B.
David R. Brumbelow
Alan,
If I were calling a pastor for my church, neither candidate would get my vote. Fortunately, we are presented with a decision of less significance and it carries a less stringent criteria for qualification. I would much prefer a president who shared my religious beliefs, but that option only shows up on very rare occasions (and was pretty much entirely missing this primary cycle). Since I am not asking the president to teach me Sunday school, I am satisfied (though not necessarily content) with voting for a non-Christian.
Chris,
I am not naive enough to believe we are voting for a pastor here. I do believe we are voting for more than a man. If we (we being born again Christians) vote wholesale for whoever the RNC puts up (this time an open cult member) then the leaders of the RNC will assume like the leaders of the DNC that no matter what the Christians will vote for whoever we put on the ballot.
I agree that there MAY be less abortions with the Romney camp. I also agree that marriage MAY retain some of it’s God given dignity and definition under the Romney camp. These are very important issues for me as a born again Christian. We also must face the facts that 1. Romney has not pledged to stop all abortions. He is for abortion when the life of the mother is at stake (this can be emotional and mental as well as physical problems). He will not be able to stop what is now legal abortions (legal doesn’t make them right) until Roe vs Wade is overturned. Now he can appoint Supreme Court members with similar ideology which could help overturn abortion on demand in the US. He could also let a lot of the authority rest back with the State governments which in many cases will lessen late term abortions and educate the mothers on exactly what abortions is. All of this would be great and would have a positive effect on the abortion rate, which I am all for.
All of that said, there will still be thousands and thousands of abortions in this nation even under Romney, so though a vote for Romney will lessen the abortion rate somewhat (which is good, yes it is) The abortion rate will note see a dramatic change under his leadership. So to rationalize partnering with a willing and intentional cult member in order to do some good on one point seems to be a deep compromise for fear of an earthly loss. His theological bent of lessening the value of some human beings (which Mormonism does) would justify in his mind abortion in many cases.
As to the marrigae issue as it pretains to Rmney we once again have deep compromise and in some ways just plain deception. Romney is for retaining the definition of marriage as one man and one woman and for the giverment to only recognize marriage as such. this sounds great till we hear the rest of the story. On the other hand Romney is for granting homosexuals civil unions which will grant them every right of marriage but will not be called marriage. He also would grant them the right to adopt children. Now except for the title, what is the difference here? If he is for granting homosexuals a government recognized civil union which would grant this union every right of those in a marriage including the right to adopt children then excuse me but that is just deception for the sake of buying the Christian vote.
Do I like what I see of Romney personally? Yes i do, I see a family man, a man who seems to have some knowledge of the financial mess we have. A man who has made it on his own. All good traits in a man. But when digging deeper i also see a man whose ideology will have to be shaped by his theology in some ways. i see a man who may give some lip service to two important Christian views, homosexuality and abortion. I also see a man who has chosen to stand in direct opposition to my Creator.
Now on the human logic side. If those who now are born again Christians think you are sending a good message to the RNC by voting for whoever they put up, think again. As Christians we will begin to lose our voice inside the RNC if we compromise and vote for a cult member. The message we send will be that we are sheep that just blindly follow no matter the theological point. If a Christian will vote for a cult member then please tell me who a Christian should not vote for as long as they wave the pro-life flag and give lip service to the definition of marriage? Where do we finally draw the line? Do we as Christians vote for anyone as long as they give lip service to those two issues no matter their theological bent?
So for me it comes down to this. Am I going to compromise some of my theological convictions to advance some good for mankind and to partner with a cult member to do this. At this point I can nor will do this.
To those who say; ‘take the lesser of the two evils” or “your wasting your vote” or “to vote for anyone else is a vote for Obama”, I say “as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”. Once again I would rather suffer evil than be part of it.
Alan Davis
Chris,
I didn’t say in that long boring post of mine; I hear you brother, and I have many Christian brothers around me saying the same thing and I respect that. I didn’t want you to think I wasn’t and hadn’t considered that and in some ways torn on those thoughts.
Alan Davis
“”””To set the record straight, I have never told the congregation, that I’m privileged to pastor, not to vote. “”””
Dwight, isn’t this a bit disingenuous? If you tell your congregation, which you lead, that you cannot, and will not vote for either candidate because it would violate your conscience, have you not made a statement as to what is “right and what is wrong?”
It seems you are only parsing words in denying you told your congregation how to vote. That type of political double talk has become the standard fare for politicians. I would think we’d want to take a different approach as pastors.
Frank,
I have simply expressed my convictions. When I preached on this subject I stressed to the congregation that they would have to prayerfully study this matter and reached their own conclusions. The AP wanted the story to be that Black pastors were encouraging their congregations not to vote, so they made that the story.
Dwight,
By sharing your convictions as a matter of Christian conviction and not simply personal conviction, by sharing this conviction with your church from the pulpit, and by then charging them to make a decision, you are doing more than simply expressing your convictions in the same way that Joshua 24:15 is more than a personal expression of conviction.
Chris,
That is one way to look at it. However, this is not the way I look at it. I think I follow your logic though.
Dwight,
My Texas Longhorn brother, I was down your way shortly ago, but lacked the time to pay you a visit. Next trip for sure.
Dwight, I think your answer may be found in the “lyrics” of one of our old songs from back when we were young and hung out together in San Francisco with flowers in our hair and hitch-hiked a ride in a Mayflower Moving Truck to New York state and went to Woodstock and then sang this song all the way back to Fort Worth herding cattle for Wendy’s Hamburgers.
Remember. It went like this:
VOTE THE ONE YOU’RE WITH
If you’re down and confused
And you don’t remember who
You’re voting for
Concentration slips away
Cos your candidate is so far away
And there’s a rose in a fisted glove
And the eagle flies with the dove
And if you can’t be with the one
You love honey
Vote the one you’re with
Don’t be angry don’t be sad
Don’t sit crying over good
Times you had
There’s a candidate, right next to you
And he’s just waiting for something
To do
Turn your heartache right into joy
He’s against abortion and so are you
So get it together make it nice
And you won’t need any more advice
CB,
LOL
Dwight
Dwight,
I must confess that this presidential election is a hard drink to swallow.
I have come to the conclusion, as have you, that this is a “one issue” presidential election.
I am going to vote for the possibility of “lessening” the murder of infants in the womb rather than the “assurance” of murdering more infants in the womb.
I would challenge you to give that idea some consideration.
CB,
There are a bunch of Black pastors upset with me because of my “going fishing” position on election day. I may need you to train me in martial arts and self protection if things don’t cool down. Please let me have my bar-b-que man prepare you the most delightful meal you can get inthis part of Texas, next time you’re here.
Dwight
Dwight McKissic,
Why not just hire me at half my former rate to provide security? I am old, half blind, slow of hand and foot now, but I can still give a mean stare down. Maybe that will at least get you through the November elections.
On a serious note, did I tell you that one of my sons is now serving on the presidential security unit?
CB,
Proud of your son. He’s making history too.
Dwight
“All that is required for evil to prevail if for good men to do nothing.” To sit this one out could tip the scales toward Obama and as a direct result to see the country fully embrace gay marriage and further support for abortion. There is little danger of the country going back to Jim Crow (even if Romney were a racist and he’s not), but there is a huge danger that we will see an even more aggressive promotion for gay rights, taxpayer funded abortion and economic polices that lead to dependence and decline. Everyone should vote (or not vote) according to thier conscience, but we are responsible for the practical effects of what we do.
Steve ,
My Republican friends say that to not vote is a vote for Obama, and my Democrat friends say that to not vote is a vote for Romney. It is my objective to not in anywise help or hurt either campaign. Since my total trust is in Christ and His Kingdom for all of my needs–and I see both candidates as fundamentally flawed–my inclination is simply to vote for neither.
Meanwhile we have to live in this vale of tears while waiting the coming of Christ. Will you tell Him that you buried the Talent He gave you through inaction?
I will tell Him that I refused to violate my convictions and conscience and I was willing to totally trust His appointment to the POTUS, without my assistance.
So you even refuse to even put your Talent to draw interest from those who I am sure would violate your convictions with their ethics?
Walt,
Frame it however you like, but I will not vote for a man whose Bible teaches that I am “loathsome,” “despised,” “unattractive,” “filthy,” and cursed. If you are comfortable doing so, go right ahead. I am not.
So in your opinion racism in an ancient text is worse than murder of the unborn?
Walt, Texas is not considered a “swing” state. It is considered to be firmly red in the Presidential election. Given that the President will not be elected by popular vote, but via the electoral college, whether Dwight votes in the election will be hardly relevant. Texas will swing to Romney.
But before we get too fast and loose with biblical interpretation, I’d encourage you to rethink the analogy of voting for an American Presidential candidate with what Jesus was talking about in his parable of the talents. I’m pretty sure that’s not what he had in mind.
Paul: Are you arguing that because we are in Texas what Dwight does doesn’t matter? If so, I disagree as he has influence far beyond our borders.
Jesus intended that we be good citizens and I believe that includes exercising our power to vote.
Racism in ancient text(s), unrepented of by one who holds the office of POTUS, and who wields the power to wreck havoc on the lives of the dark skinned people that his ancient text abhors, is the moral equivalent of the murder of the unborn. Ask the countless Black men who have been incarcerated unjustly due to racism(proven by the Innocence Foundation). Ask the Tuskegee Airman, Emmitt Teal, the couple denied the privelege of marriage in a SBC church in Mississippi recently, and thousands of other cases and experiences lived by Blacks everyday–and they will tell you that they would rather vote for someone who will respect their current life and protect it, moreso than one who purportedly will better protect life in the womb. Ask Trayvon Martin, if you could; and Skip Gates, the Black Harvard professor who was arrested for breaking into hos own house.
Yet in the great majority of cases they were not murdered before they got a chance to live. You are using the very hyperbole you claim to disdain to support a completely illogical position.
I say your position is illogical because as a percentage of population FOUR TIMES the number of black women have abortions as do white women. The abortion industry is murdering your race as the founder of Planned Parenthood intended and you refuse to do anything about it when you have the power to make a difference.
“”””””they will tell you that they would rather vote for someone who will respect their current life and protect it, moreso than one who purportedly will better protect life in the womb.”””””
I hope you are saying that with great sorrow. Where will be (where are we going now) as a nation when “my” comfort and safety rides on the back of the most innocent.
Personally, I’d rather be imprisoned, beaten, tortured, hung–or add whatever awful experience you would like–then, to aid or assist in the destruction of innocent life to save my own.
I think this is where your postion, Dwight, meets resistance. I could be wrong, but I think that such an idea as you printed above would actually be repugnant to you.
Yet, you seemed to have painted yourself into a corner and refuse to throw the brush away.
I believe there is a better way–a middle way–to fight racism without increasing the brutality and slaughter of the unborn. I am willing to challenge Mormonism’s book with you.
I am NOT willing to sacrifice innocent lives to do it and I don’t think this is necessary. I believe one (you, a Black Man) could vote for Romney and assist the unborn, and challenge his views while in office.
Punishing Romney for something in a book he does not believe and is not the official position of his church, only hurts innocents. You cannot punish Romney for a view he does not hold.
Dwight, I’m not going to post anymore on this because I think I’m shooting blanks. I don’t think you are evil for taking the stand you take; but I do think it is unnecessary and unproductive. I think there is a better way.
God bless, and see you at the polls . . . OK, not the polls but the Romney celebration party afterward.
who wields the power to wreck havoc on the lives of the dark skinned people that his ancient text abhors
And just how, exactly, would the POTUS do this? By supporting and signing welfare reform? Making it harder for people who don’t deserve government assistance to get it (i.e. drug test required, proof of citizenship)? Am I close to what you had in mind, Dwight?
I would far rather a man tell me that I’m ugly, my feet stink and my mother dresses me funny than kill me.
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn’t that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” Is her vision being fulfilled today?
http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html
Dwight,
I agree with you that sometimes not voting is the only reasonable position. I don’t object to your decision to abstain, if you believe neither candidate is at all viable. I just disagree that neither candidate is viable.
Religion and politics……dangerous mix.
3 reasons to vote for Romney:
1. Anti-abortion
2. Anti-sodomite marriage
3. Fiscal conservative (relativley speaking, compared with current potus).
Dwight, Romney is a secular mormon much like secular southern baptists. He is not racist. And as to going to the mormon temple to visit and be denied entry to certain areas????? Big deal…..who (other than a mormon) wants to even visit the mormon temple? Hold your nose and vote Romney, maybe in 4 years we can find a more acceptable candidate but for now he is the best running.
Jake Barker took hammer. Hit nail right on head. Drove it home one lick. Bravo Jake Barker.
Jake,
You may be comfortable voting for a man whose “bible” describes dark skinned people as “unattractive,” “loathsome,” and “cursed.” I’m Not!!!
If you’ve never felt the pain of being denied entrance to any place simply because of the color of your skin; it may be easy for you to casually shrug this off as “Big Deal,” but is a major issue for anyone who has experinced the pain of rejection.
Dwight,
At the risk of being misunderstood, having “experinced the pain of rejection” is bad no doubt. But the pain of being ripped apart in the womb by an abortionist (murderer) of having one’s brains sucked out after the baby’s head has been pierced by scissors is much, much, much worse. Brother in my opinion the life or death issue trumps everything else.
Les,
Both of these are”life issues.” A reason that I often hear Black Christian Democrats give for voting Democrat is pointed out by your illustration. Republicans care about “life in the womb, Democrats care about life to the tomb.” Democrats have convinced the majority of Black people that they care about their lives after the womb. Some people will vote for the party and person that they believe will do the better job of respecting their postpartum life. Although I disagree with them, I respect their decision.
Dwight
Les,
One more thing. Even if you vote Republican/Romney, abortion will still remain the law of the land for the near future. Therefore, some persons base their voting decisions for the person that they believe will grant them equal access and respect, as oppose to the persoor party that they perceive may do a better job of eventually protecting the life of the unborn, while denying access and respect to lives already born. This is how the choice between the two parties in the Black community. Consequently, the Republican Party–at their National Convention– looked like a meeting of the White Citizens Council(with a very few of their Black friends)— and the Democratic Party looked like the Kingdom of God, represented by every kindred, tribe, tongue, and nation.
Democrats care about life to the tomb
And this is why I said when you talked about economic and social justice that you meant left-wing governmental entitlements–which by the way many times go to people who are able to work, but unwilling to work. In other words, lazy.
Joe,
There you go again, misrepresenting and distorting what I’ve said. “Democrats care about life to the tomb” was my way of summing up why I believe the majority of Blacks vote Democrat. But I made it clear that, this is not how I vote or feel. Please don’t misrepresent and quote out of context my words.
Wait a minute dear gentlemen,
I know Dwight personally. he has never supported abortion. he is no leftist, socialist, or any other off-the-wall radical nut-case. And he certainly does not support the politics of “lazy.”
There really are problems with both candidates for people of faith. One problem I believe both of them have is when either one might construct a sentence with such words as “people of faith” they might use the pronoun, “we.”
Neither of them are of us as people of The Faith. Yet, we know full well what one has done in the last four years. Therefore, I shall vote for the other and pray God grants us mercy if Jesus tarries in His return.
Dwight,
So some people believe… “A reason that I often hear Black Christian Democrats give for voting Democrat is pointed out by your illustration. Republicans care about “life in the womb, Democrats care about life to the tomb.” Democrats have convinced the majority of Black people that they care about their lives after the womb.”
Well, that does not make what they believe true. And it is not true. Rs are not just for life in the womb. That is a false narrative put forth by the Ds and their allies in the MSM.
Dwight,
“One more thing. Even if you vote Republican/Romney, abortion will still remain the law of the land for the near future.”
There is no denying that is probably true. However, we have tangible proof of what Obama’s second term will be involving babies…even MORE babies murdered! By presidential executive orders (not to mention Obamacare and regs via the HHS) more babies have died as a resut of Obama being president.
So the choice as I see it is voting to increase more murder of babies or voting to reduce the murder of babies from current levels.
“Therefore, some persons base their voting decisions for the person that they believe will grant them equal access and respect, as oppose to the persoor party that they perceive may do a better job of eventually protecting the life of the unborn, while denying access and respect to lives already born.”
I think those who believe this have bought the false narrative portrayed by the MSM.
“This is how the choice between the two parties in the Black community. Consequently, the Republican Party–at their National Convention– looked like a meeting of the White Citizens Council(with a very few of their Black friends)— and the Democratic Party looked like the Kingdom of God, represented by every kindred, tribe, tongue, and nation.”
It is unfortunate that many in the “black community” as you call it, feel like their political home is with the Ds where the D policies have only served to effectively help destroy the black community.
And for the record, I do not know you but neither do I doubt your pro-life beliefs brother.
Democrats care about life to the tomb
That may not be how you vote or feel. Fine. Anyone who would agree with the above phrase does so because the Dem’s take money from people that work and earn it in order to give it to people who are capable of working but are too lazy to do so.
If A works at Popeye’s, her baby daddy don’t pay the child support for one of her kids and the other kid’s baby daddy was killed in a drive by and they can’t locate the third kid’s baby daddy to serve child support papers on him so she can’t feed and clothe her chiltren without food stamps, section 8 housing, and other governmental assistance, I am all for helping her with child care so she can go back to school to get a better job to improve her life. But NO, she doesn’t want that. She wants the same kind of lifestyle that people who work for a living in a job that pays what they need to live on has, but she wants the government to provide it–and a pack of Newport menthols everyday.
Lazy=no sympathy.
“… the Republican Party–at their National Convention– looked like a meeting of the White Citizens Council(with a very few of their Black friends)— and the Democratic Party looked like the Kingdom of God, represented by every kindred, tribe, tongue, and nation…”
Yeah, the Kingdom of God carrying out a Satanic mission of slaughtering the innocent unborn. Where is your thinking cap?
Democratic Party looked like the Kingdom of God, represented by every kindred, tribe, tongue, and nation.
Democrats pledge their life’s blood to keep and expand abortion rights. If black people see them as you’ve described above, they SERIOUSLY need new glasses.
There is NEVER a justification for voting for a pro-abortion candidate. EVER.
Dwight,
Just who the heck wants to visit the mormon temple? Unless one is a mormon we don’t even need to be there….if the mormon heirarchy is racist so be it, that is on their judicial doc on judgement day not ours. And yes I have felt rejection even in my own congregation because of my mixed race children…..so what be the bigger man, forgive them before they realize they need your forgiveness. Kinda like the thread on this site about communion……maybe you need to examine yourself before next Lord’s Supper…..like the Michael Meyers film ” I’m not worthy”…..sorry Dwight just had to throw that in as we all are unworthy but forgiven nevertheless.
Dwight,
Luv you brother and you and your family would never be any of what the book of mormon says about you at my house, not to mention that I cook much better “Q” than anything a mormon could whip up. So why would you want to go to Salt Lake City when you could stay closer to home and most certainly be fed better food and be welcomed too?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/09/03/160502626/romney-and-abortion-another-shift-in-the-works
According to this article Romney has shifted his position on the subject of abortion, declaring himself pro abortion when running for office in Massachusetts.
Yeah because NPR is an unbiased news source.
Ok, let’s pretend that he is pro-abortion. Did he ever vote to deny medical care to the survivors of botched abortions? Did he? Your beloved president sure as snot did! What kind of monster would you have to be to deny a baby who survived an abortion medical care?
Oh my goodness. Did I read this correctly? You are claiming that Romney was pro-abortion. npr is not a unbiased source. That’s complete nonsense. I don’t think that’s what you meant. When it comes to the discussion of abortion, one needs to be precise. Being pro-abortion rights, is not even close to being pro abortion. If you had ever stood by while a woman was having such a procedure you’d know just how profound the difference is.
Nobody said Romney was ideal candidate. To the contrary, both Romney and Obama would say anything to get elected. I find Romney only slightly less objectionable than BHO. But more than the issue of abortion is the issue of our right to practice our faith as the U.S. Constitution protects. Just as soon as we are forced to pay for abortions, for all intents and purposes, our religious liberties are gone. Both candidates have dismal records. However, it takes a demented person to deny medical care to a baby who survived abortion as BHO has done. BHO doesn’t even lie and tell us he thinks abortion should be rare. No, he says that pregnancy and having unwanted children “punish” people and an unwanted pregnancy takes away a woman’s equal opportunities to careers. What a deplorable way to view a gift from God.
All I can do as a child of God is to prevent as much evil as I can. That makes the choice clear. Avoiding the issue and turning away is much like people responded in late 1930 and early 1940’s Germany. I will not be a party to the continued genocide of children. I can respect that others see it differently, but I still think it is wrong and I will NOT remain silent.
Dwight, I believe you are right, in part. So are the other guys, right in part.
We have people in this country, Yes the U.S.A. that have been caught eating cat food because they draw such a small amount each month, and the Republicans want to cut what they draw, they are going hungry now.
The Republicans want to cut medicare, and medicade for these people, the next step is death for these people.
Mormon’s believe Jesus has a brother whose name is Lucifer. My God, how bad can things get? The magic underwear??? Multiple wives, New commandments. No abortion even when it endangers the mothers life.
Let’s look at the Dem’s. Same sex marriage, abortions, I’ll give the Dem’s credit for one thing, sex education to cut down on abortions, The Republicans even want to cut out funding for these programs, teens are going to have sex anyway, so why not help them to keep from getting pregnant.
I want to point out both parties make me sick at my stomach. Republicans are the biggest liars, the Dem’s are the second biggest liars, and to make a long story short both are liars. Both parties are going to kill someone, so what do we do?
Can you identify for me one person who has ever eaten cat food because they had absolutely no legal way to get better food?
meeee-yooooow
David,
Perhaps what he meant by cat food was using cats for food? There is some merit to that plan… Helps with world hunger while getting rid of a rodent.
I hear cats taste a little like chicken if they are prepared properly.
There’s a cat in the kettle at the Shang Hai Moon,
Think I better stop eatin’ there at noon
They say it’s chicken, fish, or pork
But it’s Meowing on my fork, yeah
It’s Meowing on my fork.
Chris,
Yes I can, ME. I had a horrible divorce in 1984. I was the offended party yet the Oklahoma judicial system favored the woman. I ate 10cent a can cat tuna for many a meal while I faithfully paid my child support so my children could eat lobster and steak. Don’t go there cause it could open a 55 gallon barrel of WA on you.
Jake,
While I’m not interested in barrels of any sort, I typically don’t mind going anywhere a conversation leads.
Raman noodles are cheaper.
Eating cat food is just dumb. Seriously, I let my family somehow talk me into getting two cats for our little kids. That stuff is expensive. Not to sound insensitive or anything. I know what poverty is like. Growing up I had a few weeks were my options for supper were corn or jell-o. And even while married there were a few weeks early on where we discovered a million different ways to eat an egg.
But cat food is expensive. If you don’t have money to eat get rid of your cat. Stop buying it food. Either you have to go catch mice and eat it or the cat does. Spend your money that went on cat food to getting some banana’s or even a BMW.
1) I’m a white guy so I am in no way qualified to make observations on Dwight McKissic’s reactions to the Mormon Bible and/or the book of Mormon.
2) I’ve gotten to know him as a friend over the years and from observing him personally, I must respect his opinion and his personal judgment regarding his personal responsibility in voting or not voting.
I appreciate Bro. Dwight’s position and his reasoning even if I have not reached that same conclusion. Does the Bible require Christians to register to vote and actually cast a vote in each and every election for each and every office on the ballot? Is it a sin for a Christian to either not register to vote or to refrain from voting in a particular election or for a particular office? While we have many rights and responsibilities as citizens of America — rights and responsibilities that would have been foreign to Christians in the 1st Century — I don’t see where Scripture mandates that Christians vote or else commit sin by failing to vote.
While I have come to a different conclusion than Bro. Dwight and will cast my vote for Romney/Ryan AND against Obama/Biden, I simply do not believe that it is right or proper for us to question the motives of those (like Bro. Dwight) who have concluded that it would, in effect, be sin for them to cast a vote for either Gov. Romney or Pres. Obama (see Romans 14:23). And, using the abortion argument to get Bro. Dwight to change his Spirit-led conviction on this issue is not only weak, but misguided. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Dwight,
I agree with you although for some different reasons! I do not intend to vote for either candidate.
1. Read what Charles Spurgeon had to say about voting for two wicked people .
“The great pastor, Charles Spurgeon, said: ‘When given the choice between the lesser of two evils, choose neither’. If God’s values (issues) truly are first for Christians, to choose any politician who violates any of these values is to displease Almighty God Himself. This opens us up for His judgment upon we who have rejected Him. It is better to vote for someone who has no chance of winning yet the vote will be counted against someone who failed at God’s position.”
2. Listen to Hank Hannegraf ….Bible Answer man on this topic. Good discussion on both sides.
3. Remember even if our nation falls it is much better to we right with God then be wrong with a idol worshipper.
BTW—Having worked for Marriott International for a number of years I can tell you that Mitt and Bill are not really opposed to same sex marriage.
see this ad ……….http://www.marriott.com/marriott/marriott-gay-travel.mi
Chris, I don’t remember the names but it made the news. I have personally visited homes that didn’t have any food, and purchased food out of my pocket. I’ll bet where ever you go to church, not far from your church there will be someone hungry. Don’t you know hunger is a problem in this country. Most people are not lazy, they just need a chance. There are circumstances that can happen that devastates a family and they are not prepared for them. A friend of mine went to one family’s home and there was no food for Christmas. No gifts or anything. The husband disappeared, left her and her three children with no money or food or anything, no car or phone to get in touch with someone. I have a full stomach and it’s hard to imagine someone going hungry in this country, but they are.
Yes, there are hungry people in the area and it usually boils down to the choices of the individual, not the failure of government. Support exists for those truly in need. Doesn’t mean things will be easy, doesn’t mean society can’t do more, but it does mean people won’t be left to eating cat food.
M.O.E.,
May I ask if you live in Southwest Virginia., Southeastern Kentucky, or in West Virginia?
MOE
At one time the church was committed to helping the poor everyday. That is our charge from God. The government has stepped in now and the mind-set of the church today is to let the government take care of them. The government’s approach to helping the poor only makes them dependent on the government. When the church would help, they would get involved in their life to find out if they are truly needy or need to go to work. Scripture does say, “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10) God’s way really does help the poor. Our government should not be in the business of helping the poor, the church should. The government waste the money they spend on the poor. One of the Parties that appeal to the poor only do it for a vote.
How can Christians help the poor? Watch “A Man Called Norman”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rigeTsJNd8o
Chris, it’s not the childs fault. If you look on the web, according to the USDA, one in four children barely scraped by with enough to eat last year. There is a growing problem of hunger in this country. We help the oil companies with subsidies, while they repay us with four dollar gasoline. I dont have any money in a Swiss bank so I don’t have to pay taxes on it. I don’t want my taxes raised so the rich can have a tax cut. Let them pay their fair share. People will eat what they can get their hands on when they are hungry. Dwight is right about Mormons believing dark skin people have a curse on them. Chris, why are you taking this so light hearted. It’s almost like you are making fun of the hungry.
I am not pushing any politician
MOE,
You said, …”so the rich can have a tax cut. Let them pay their fair share.”
I have wondered-What is fair? I hear this phrase all the time in the liberal media and by liberal politicians. So what is a fair share?
Thanks,
Les
To me a fair share would be the percentage that I pay in taxes. I want to point out that I am white. I have been a bivocational Pastor for thirty five years. When I wasn’t doing the Lords work I was in an underground coal mine working like a dog. I have worked hard all my life. There has been times I have felt like I have paid more than my fair share of taxes. But I paid them, every cent. I feel like everyone else should do the same. Including those who make more. If I pay thirty percent in taxes why can’t the rich pay thirty percent.
MOE, you picked 30%. Why is that fair? The highest bracket is actually higher than 30%. Romney doesn’t pay 30% because of the type of income he has…it is not earned income. It’s investment income which is taxed at a lower rate than wages.
But you say 30%. Somebody else says 20%. Another says 40%. Who gets to decide what is “fair?”. You? Chuck Schumer?
I really think the fair share notion is bogus. No offense intended. Because, at the end of the day it’s arbitrary. And besides, if we taxed really wealthy people at 100% of their income it would last just a few months. And so would they last a short time with no income.
We do not have a revenue problem in this country. We have a spending problem, specifically an entitlement spending problem that is unsustainable.
Last, while I’m not opposed to some safety net for the hungry, the poor, truly poor, should be being cared for by Christians…not the government (taxpayers).
MOE,
I would just remind you that the upper 1% in the nation pay 36% of all taxes brought into the US coffers. The upper 5% pay about 55% of all the taxes our government collects. Also, the fact is that most of us in the middle class actually don’t pay anywhere near 30% of our income in taxes by the time you calculate earned income credit and what we get back in refund. And finally the bottom 50% of our nation only pay 2.25% of the tax our government collects. Revenue is not our problem, the problem is a government that can’t control spending.
Dwight,
Do you agree that people should work, and make thier own living?
How can a nation survive if half the people depend on the other half to pay all the bills?
And Dwight, I agree with you that Mormonism is a racist religion. I dont like Mormonism. I will have to swallow deep…walk into the voting booth…and vote for Romney because he’s more conservative than Obama…more pro life than Obama…. and is for less govt. and less taxes than Obama…and I really dont know if our country can take 4 more years of a liberal, socialistic, big govt. Obama.
I love you, Brother. There’s just not a perfect candidate to vote for this year; like most years. We just have to pick who we feel is best.
David
Vol,
I think this year is an election year of thinking like the hunter who has only one round left for his gun and he knows winter is coming fast and he has to shoot something and make it count as best he can so his wife, kids and ‘coondog can eat ’till he can buy some more cartridges for his rifle.
So he goes huntin’ and he comes upon a rabbit and a razorback hog at about the same range and the difficulty of the shot is relatively the same. What does he do?
Of course, he shoots the razorback hog, ’cause anybody knows you can get more bacon from a hog than a rabbit, right?
This election year, the hog happens to be a Mormon. End of story.
Well put CB!! One can understand that.
Alan
Wow, CB, that brought a tear to my eye. Good stuff, Brother.
David 🙂
volfan007,
Absolutely!!! People should work to pay their bills. If it were left up to me the only persons getting government assistance would be persons who have a certified letter from a doctor stating that they are physically or mentally/emotionally incapable of working. If other persons were to receive assistance it would be for a maximum of 6-12 months. And when that’s completed, no more.
I would add to that, and I’m guessing you would too, for grants and loans for folks wanting to further their education to get out of dead end jobs that can’t pay enough to support their family. If someone wants to do better but needs some help to get started or get there, I’m all for helping them.
So healthy children of deadbeat parents go wanting?
Tough talk is great, until poverty has the face of a cherub
Along with tough reform we need to provide opportunities.
I’m glad to hear you have decided to put your vote where your mouth is
The coming election will either help or hurt children. We have part of the solution to these issues in our hand. We can’t fix everything in one election, but we can start
We need to check our moralizing and put a check on our ballots that will actually make a real difference.
Simply vote straight party! That way your conscience can rest a little easier.
There have been blacks in LDS for a long time. http://www.blacklds.org/
Voting is a privilege we have as free citizens. These guys are “politicians”, not preachers. They are employed by the citizens of the US and we influence them to do what we want them to do.
Your “no vote” approach sounds more like the hard-line Calvinist approach to evangelism.
Dwight,
So what do I tell my children and grandchildren in 10-15 years? When the government denies a health care procedure or takes more of their money than they get to keep or allows our enemies to attack us wantonly?
There was a candidate who unabashedly supported abortion, homosexual marriage, and taking money from successful people and giving it to less successful people, who thinks more government is the answer to nearly everything.
There was a candidate who opposes abortion, believes that people make the best decisions about their lives, not government, who has zero evidence of personal racism in his past, who on the moral issues of the day clearly agrees with life and freedom.
I had a chance to vote for one or the other and I voted “present.”
Maybe you can live with that decision. I cannot and will not.
Dwight,
I think that this is the first post on sbcvoices in which I totally agree. I’m thinking of writing-in my candidate. I cannot vote for either man. I am responsible for my vote, not the result of the election.
Donald
Writing in a vote is morally defensible if voting was about making a statement.
Voting is about making a difference. And make no mistake about it, this time around a vote can make a real difference in life and death issues, especially for children and the poor.
Frank:
In 1928, Herbert Hoover won the Republican Massachusetts presidential primary on write-ins, polling 100,279.
In 1940, Franklin D. Roosevelt won the Democratic New Jersey presidential primary with 34,278 write-ins.
In 1944, Thomas Dewey won the Republican Pennsylvania presidential primary with 146,706 write-ins. He also won the Oregon Republican presidential primary with 50,001 write-ins.
In 1948, Harold Stassen won the Republican Pennsylvania presidential primary with 81,242 write-ins.
In 1952, Robert Taft won the Republican Nebraska presidential primary with 79,357 write-ins.
Also in 1952, Estes Kefauver won the Democratic Pennsylvania presidential primary with 93,160 write-ins.
Also in 1952, Dwight Eisenhower won the Republican Massachusetts presidential primary with 254,898 write-ins.
In 1956, Dwight Eisenhower won the Republican Massachusetts presidential primary with 51,951 write-ins.
In 1960, Richard Nixon won the Republican Massachusetts presidential primary with 53,164 write-ins.
Also in 1960, John F. Kennedy won the Democratic Pennsylvania presidential primary with 183,073 write-ins, and he won the Democratic Massachusetts presidential primary with 91,607 write-ins.
In 1964, a write-in campaign organized by supporters of former U.S. Senator and vice presidential nominee Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. won Republican primaries for President in New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, defeating declared candidates Barry Goldwater, Nelson Rockefeller, and Margaret Chase Smith.
In 1968 in the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire, incumbent President Lyndon Johnson did not file, but received write-ins totaling 50% of all Democratic votes cast. Senator Eugene McCarthy, who campaigned actively against Johnson’s Vietnam war policies, was on the ballot. He received an impressive 41% of the vote and gained more delegates than the President. Johnson was so stunned that he did not run for reelection.[2]
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader ran a write-in campaign in 1992 during the New Hampshire primary for the presidential nomination of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Declaring himself the “none of the above candidate” and using the Concord Principles as his platform, Nader received 3,054 votes from Democrats and 3,258 votes from Republicans.
Wow, and winning a primary is the exact same thing as winning the real election in November? Gosh, I’m glad you’re around to educate us. (eye roll)
Name one president that has ever won the November election as a write in candidate.
(crickets chirping)
Joe,
My campaign manager once said, “Figures don’t lie but liars will figure.”
One can manipulate figures to reflect whatever presuppositions one presupposes. As you point out: not one Presidential race has been won by a “write in.”
I’m not a betting man, but I’m betting that will be the case with this election also.
A write-in vote can make a statement, but it cannot make a difference.
PS–If one wants to make a statement, I remember the story about a Buddhist Monk during the Viet Nam war.
CB Scott, In answer to your question, Southeast Ky.
John, That is some wierd math, It reminds me of the story of the sucessful businessman that went to his Pastor and told him That with all the money he is making now a tith is way too much to give to the church, he said I can’t afford to give that much to the church. The Pastor said, come lets pray that God will reduce your salary so you can once again afford to give a tith to God.
M.O.E.,
Knox, Bell, Harlan, or Pike County?
While Romney’s number 47% more than likely doesn’t actually equate to the true number of people depending on the government, the principle of what he was saying is the truth. There is a large section of the population that believe it is up to the government and society to take care of them; and the liberals are willing to oblige for the sake of power.
– Taking care of those who “cannot” care for themselves has never been a problem for anyone I know.
– Taking care of those who “will not” care for themselves is a “deciding” problem for a lot of people I know. The Apostle Paul is one of them.
While I am sensitive to any disgusting display of racism, I do not believe Romney is a racist, any more than I am an orthodox Jew.
While I respect Bro. McKissic’s opinion, I believe an election is as much about voting someone out of office as much, or more as voting someone in.
While it is unchangeably true that neither candidate is a Bible believing conservative, there is more in a vote than just a candidate.
When God’s people were living powerless, under godless leaders, and facing no real choices; (of course they were there because of their own sin), the Lord said to them in Jeremiah 29:7 – “seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.”
– Somewhere packed deep in that ancient instruction to Israel, is a principle for those without power, and no real choice, to work beyond the godlessness of the government over them.
– What is at stake for our country is a “direction;” and while I don’t believe in either candidate per se, I do have the opportunity to participate in the “direction” that we are headed. While some will disagree, I don’t think the line between opportunity and responsibility (in this case) is very thick at all.
You know, I realize this comment thread is already getting not only long but long in the tooth.
My thought:
1. While it makes me uncomfortable due to missing the opportunity to cast a vote, I recognize Dwight’s stand as a principled one. While the situation is ENTIRELY different, I don’t buy lottery tickets for a very simple reason: I trust God to take care of me and to provide for me and for my family. Voting is a civic duty, but trusting God is a higher responsibility.
2. It brings up the point, again, that the Mormons capitulated on polygamy in order to have Utah admitted in the United States as a state. This is the most significant moment since then–easily eclipsing the Winter Olympics that Mitt helped with–for the LDS church to burnish its reputation through the candidacy of Mitt Romney. If there is ever going to be a time to confront them on this issue, now is that time. You will never, ever, ever have the same opportunity again, especially with Mitt facing a Black president.
3. I confess EXTREME discomfort with Dwight referring to their “ancient texts” that have no proof of existence prior to 1827. We could find plenty to discuss on the topic, but I’ll also note that the Koran didn’t exist in any form before 609 AD. Mohammed at least claimed it was dictated to him. Joseph Smith claimed he was given golden leaves written in an otherwise non-existent language and also given the gift of interpretation to understand it. And, we might add, the gift of tongues to express it in rather surprisingly bad (for a miraculous gift) King James English.
I think we need to be extremely circumspect in providing leadership regarding the, if you will permit me to use the comparison, the rites of our secular citizenship. We Americans do tend to feel that the United States is an exceptional nation and we Christians tend to look for analogs between the USA and God’s chosen nation of Israel that was chosen by God for the purpose of providing a Savior for people of every tribe and every nation (including for that chosen nation.) I think sometimes we need to spend the time carefully separating our Kingdom perspective from our earthly, national identity.
Dwight’s stand effectively and emphatically does that. He succeeds in using each man’s candidacy to examine the Kingdom intent of the man and to point out how truly ineffective the campaign of each is in representing God’s Kingdom. At the same time, Dwight raises important Kingdom concerns and actually reminds us that these Kingdom concerns will not be fully addressed until the Man of Sorrows is revealed as the true, Once and Future King. No sovereign will match his Kingship. No kingdom will match his Kingdom.
It is appropriate to address these issues as political issues as well. Our discomfort and distaste for abortion should be equally matched with our discomfort and distaste for the vestiges of racism. There can be zero doubt that the 1827 “revelation” strongly reflects the 1827 politics of our nation. It is a clear opportunity for the SBC to approach Romney and the LDS church and point out–based on our own blindness and deafness and sin on this subject in the past–how hurtful their stance is.
The LDS church will attempt to hide behind the skirts of prophecy and revelation and to a great extent our focus on inerrancy enables that behavior by them. But arguments regarding the curse of Ham are modern inventions. They don’t date much past the founding of our nation if that. Therefore they fully reflect the sin of racism, not the inerrancy of our Bible. We as Southern Baptists are uniquely positioned to note that and to comment on it due to our founding based on the desire to send slaveholders as missionaries.
The opportunity won’t last long. Romney isn’t winning at the moment but he’s competitive. EITHER candidate addressing the issues Dwight raises will solidify his presidency. Now I’ll be honest: I fully expect that Obama will take the tack that Clinton took if he addresses this at all. Namely that he will say that we grieve at the situation that makes a woman feel it is the right choice to seek an abortion and as a nation want to limit the necessity of any abortions. He can’t hold onto his base and say anything else as a significant portion of it agrees with the pro-choice position.
But Mitt Romney can look like a statesman and a wise leader within his church by asking the church to re-examine this passage and denouncing it. It’s a unique opportunity for a highly regarded man to provide solid counsel to his church without being accused of lowering the careful wall of separation between church and state. And it can only occur before he is elected President.
Does it matter if you live in a state that has no chance of the polls being wrong or a close election. Lets say you live in California the chance of Romney taking California is around 20%. So if you don’t vote for Romney does it really matter. But what if you live in a state that it is projected to be a close election then your vote matters.
I do not vote for ones Religion, I vote for the values of the person running for office that I believe come closest to matching the scriptures and the values I have. There are many “Mainstream Christians” I would have an issue voting for.
Do you guys know anyone that is recieving assistance from the state or federal government that do not deserve it. If so, why haven’t you reported it to the authorities. Sounds like you have been watching Fox news.
I do know things go on, That I disagree with, Such as addicts being able to get assistance just because they are addicts. I do believe they need help to get off drugs, but then stop the assistance.
I saw on the news the other day that the morbidly obese can receive assistance from the goverment. Again, help them to get normal then get off goverment assistance.
I believe many things needs to be fixed but not entirely done away with.
Also, it would not hurt some things to be done away with.
If you really want to fix this country, have a two term limit on the congress and senate. Force them to have the same insurance as we do, and live by the same laws as we do. when their terms are up send them home and go to work, as we do. I’ll guarentee this will fix this country.
But we as Americans keep voting in the same ones over, and over again.
My question is, “why”?.
MOE
You confuse “deserving” with “legally”. I can easily give you a list of names of people legally receiving assistance that do not deserve it.
I can give you another list of deserving people who receive no assistance.
I very seldom watch Fox News.
If you are going to ride such a high horse, I’d suggest wearing a helmet
I would like to add one more thing, One of the major problems with this greatest nation on earth, is not thinking things completely through. It’s like the old Pepsi Cola trick to rid a house of mice, all you have to do is set a saucer full of Pepsi in a corner some where in the house. Every one knows a mouse can’t belch or pass gas so it explodes.
FRANK, I am learning how to be a politican, just keep it between us.
MOE. I’ve been a politician. Please forgive me
Dwight,
In Texas, you can write in the name of anyone when casting your vote for President.
So, vote for me.
Yours in Christ,
Barber 2012
Bart,
How can you do that with an electronic ballot? Do you have to make a special request in order to accomplish a write in vote?
Dwight
Dwight,
There are instructions at the Secretary of State’s web site. I haven’t read them.
Thanks.
That’s three comments I’ve made with you. Have I earned your vote yet? 😉
I did some searching and dug up a timely theme for Bart’s presidency: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSsIAmz7cuA
It even has a bit of a gospel feel. Don’t listen too hard to the lyrics except for the humor angle.
PRESIDENT BART BARBER–President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. That has a great ring to it. If I were a trustee and the position of President was being filled, you would get my vote. At the end of the day you are an objective, reasonable, scholarly, godly, and fair man. My life is richer by knowing you.
Dwight
I agree with you, Dwight. That does have a great ring to it.
I ain’t staging no coup d’état against Paige Patterson—you can bet for darn tootin’ sure about that!
Bart,
Be most assured, I have no such idea in mind. I think that in 15-20 years when Dr. Patterson goes into full time evangelism, you would make the perfect candidate for the big chair at SWBTS.
So, far from staging a “coup d’etat,” I think you should enter the “stage” from the seat of a “coup deville” parked out front in the parking space reserved for “President.”
😉 Glad I wasn’t drinking Dr. Pepper when I read that last line!
A different point of view. One I happen to share.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F77s8wHCY3o&feature=g-all-c
John,
The thread got a bit hard to drive through, so I’ll comment down here.
You said, “””we would say that the Old Testament is not our standard””””
That is precisely the official position of the Mormon church in regard to the issues of race in the Book of Mormon. So, you are making my argument not disputing it.
Frank,
I have studied Mormonism very little since I left seminary, and that was in 1987. Consequently, you may have more up-to-date information than me. Back then at least, no informed Mormon would say that something in the Book of Mormon was not their standard. That book was their greatest and highest piece of “revelation.” The three other Mormon “Holy Books” were also considered revelation, but of a lessor degree. The Pearl of Great Price was considered an accurate revelation from God, but only where it was not contradicted by the Book of Mormon; the Book of Covenants was considered an accurate book except where it was contradicted by the Book of Mormon or the Pearl of Great Price. And the Bible was considered an acurate revelation except where it was contradicted by the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, or the Book of Covenants. The only thing that could supercede the Book of Mormon was a new revelation through the . . . I forget his title, president or prophet or whomever, their head guy. In fact, that happened in opening the “priesthood on the order of Melchezidek” to all males over 18 (I think was the age) instead of only to white males over 18, so they then changed what the Book of Mormon said. Perhaps the same thing happened with polygamy, I do not recall.
John
Dwight
Tell yourself whatever the snot you need to–you have ASSERTED that Romney is a racist. You haven’t proven ANYTHING. And “He’s a mormon and the book of mormon is racist” is not PROOF that he’s a racist. He is not responsible for being a spokesman for his church.
As for me, I’m by no means excited about voting for Romney, but the most important thing to me and for this country politcally is to get that clown, your ‘beloved president”, out of office. The only way to vote against Oh_blah_blah is to vote for Romney.
Amen and amen.
I came to the conclusion that I’m not voting for a “Spiritual Leader or for a Pastor of my church”. If that were the case, neither of these men would come close to being qualified.
I’m voting for a government leader to LEAD our country in a political, economic, and foreign policy manner that is best for our country…AND that certainly is not the man whom presently resides in the White House.
I’m not voting for someone who will teach me biblical truth.
A person who decides not to vote in this election and instead goes “fishing” is a person who really is voting for the person who is our present president.
Seems like I see four persons sitting on four separate stolls… one with both hands over his eyes, one with both hands over his ears, one with both hands over his mouth, and one odd looking person with three pairs of hands over his eyes, ears, and mouth with a fishing pole in his lap.
“A person who decides not to vote in this election and instead goes “fishing” is a person who really is voting for the person who is our present president.”
This is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma (falsum in omnibus). There are not only two choices. You might be of the opinion that only one of two certain men can win and therefore be willing to vote for one because he is less evil than the other. I refuse. There are other choices, including abstaining. Abjuring the realm is a vote FOR “none of the above”. It is a statement that you will no longer bleat for one candidate out of fear of the other. It is a statement that the right man can have your vote, as well as the vote of others who stand on principle above pragmatism.
Consider, as one option, the Constitution Party Candidate: http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/the-issues.html
Donald,
I do agree that we should not “bleat for one candidate out of fear for another.”
However, to suggest that a vote for any candidate other than the two is a truly viable option is beyond reasonable. It is “possible” but not at all probable.
The probability of such a choice being viable is so low that it must be considered impossible. Therefore, such a choice cannot be a justifiable foundation for a moral choice.
There may be other ways to justify not voting, but a “third party, write-in” proposition does not seem such a justification. The reality is that a third party vote is a vote for the winner.
My goal in voting for Romney is not to elect Romney. I am not excited about him. My goal in voting for Romney is he is the only candidate that will have a chance to beat Obama. Seeing Obama lose, wiping that smug look off his arogant face, is my goal.
JOe,
There’s no way around it, the only way to get Obama out is to put Romney in.
If Romney can deliver on jobs, he’ll almost certainly get reelected for a second term. If he doesn’t deliver on jobs, he’s going to be a one term president.
How long has it been since we have had two one-term presidents back to back?
These are uncertain days for the country to be sure.
Here’s my thing. I want a Republican in there so we can pack the court. There were at least two lib justices that were waiting on a lib like Obama to get elected so they could retire. If we’d had a Republican, a good conservative (which McCain wasn’t, but anyway) elected, we most certainly could have seen them retire or die and gotten conservatives in their place. As it stands now, we have the crazy abortion chick and a wise latina who isn’t good enough to be on the Supreme Court.
Folks, have you seen the latest numbers? Romney is still in negative territory. News reporters can’t even get elected Republican officals to answer questions on things Romney has said because they are afraid their own re-election will be in jeopardy. Romney has changed his mind yet again, he is now talking about the hundred percenters, will you change your minds too?
Charles, are you putting political, economic, and foreign policy issues above the Bible.
And what part of the Bible is he supposedly putting those things over?
Joe, I asked were those things the most important.
M.O.E.
Who suggested they weren’t??
That should say “Who suggested they WERE?” As in who suggested politics, economic policy and foreign policy were more important than the Bible?
Dr. McKissic, while I plan to vote for MR as the lesser of two evils, I can feel the pain of voting for that aberrant, erroneous, and vicious viewpoint encapsulated in the Mormon writings on the subject of race. It is sure idiocy, but I fear the real aim is to keep Obama so the course of communising the USA can continue and then they can also collapse the economic and get the great pop elimination effort going (get rid of the “useless eaters” as H.G. Wells called them). MR gave them the ammo to do it with by his attitude of contempt for the average john doe American (black or white), when the same is some of the greatest as is proved in the times of crises. I grew up on a sharecropper’s farm in Arkansas, started in the cotton fields when I was five years of age, sunup to sunset. Those folks with whom I worked might have lacked education and opportunity, but they did not lack in gray matter; they were often brilliant, talented, witty, complex, complicated, winsome, wicked when lost and wonderful when saved. Just like the Black folks. General Lee though he bowed at the communion rail with a Black brother two weeks after he surrendered the Confederate Army at Appomattox did not believe Blacks could be the equals of Whites. Even when he thought that there were two Black men in South Carolina with Oxford University educations, men who would inspire other Blacks and leave a legacy called Claflin University (though I taught on South Carolina State College’s campus back to back with Claflin, I never learned that legacy until I was living in Lincolnton, NC and read the story of the grand daughter of one of those Black men. Wow!
And having studied Black History under one of the great Black Historians, Lorenzo J. Greene, who had been associate editor to Carter G. Woodson on the Journal of Negro Life and History, I had quite an immersion in Black History (as it was called then). Later I wrote a prospectus for a Doctoral Dissertation in Black History at Columbia Univ. and then did a Project for the Doctor of Ministry at SEBTS on Christian Love & Race Relations without the back of the seminary, when it was supposed to be liberal. Liberal, my eye. I had to threaten the seminary with going to the floor of the SBC and raising a big stink, when my director kept nit-picking me to death after I got the project done without getting fired (he had said to me, “You ought to have known better than to select a controversial topic like this”(Christian Love & Race Relations???). If they fire you, I will be right there behind them, supporting that church.”(!!!) well, I got it done without being fired, and then he started finding fault with every word I wrote until the Friday before the Baccalaurete (sp?) the next Friday, when I blew up and called the President with my threat. He must have thought like the old joke about White Washing machines being fully integrated, cause they had a black agitator in every one of them, that he had a black agitator in that white skinned student. Well, he did. I was mad. Anyway, the real reason for the project was so that one of the deacons could have black sons and he and his wife could take them on a trip for the Seniors of the Church and the wife would say to me with great pride, “My grandsons were so well behaved, and all of my friends complimented me so much.” God likes to laugh, I am sure. What a change for that church.
Please know that I am not happy about this vote for MR. My conscience is kicking me, especially as I suspect his dumb speech about Americans being so sorry was probably one of those things mentioned by FDR, “Nothing happens by accident in public.” In other words, the folks running things want Obama to continue, so they can run the economy off the cliff, get chaos going, and get rid of the excess population (you and me and all the useless eaters as Wells called them), some 5.5 billion people. Some 20 years ago during the Beast of Brussels saga, one fellow told how he went into a bank to get a loan and how a friend of his helped him get it, showing him a paper he had written in high school, which the fellow got through a computer link with a computer in Brussels!!! Then through the years we hear that is a cockamamie story, the idea of a such a computer in Brussels. Now they have cloud computing and a real problem with AI. Wait till it comes up with the idea that the planners are supernumerary. Then the fat will hit the fan. We are still going to have a Third Great Awakening, one reaching every soul on earth and continuing for a 1000 generations (yes, I said generations, not years…and that allows for anywhere from 20,000 to 500,000+ years, depending on how much a generation lengthens in the future) and reaching millions of planets — all so God can crack a humorous remark about the number of the redeemed being a number no one can number (Including Him?)..Now that would be a funny and it is. And He will likely do it with Black folks and others like them who are on the bottom…as in the epigrammatic remark of Zeph. 2:12 which really does fit MLK, Jr. and Arnold Toynbee’s view on the matter. Ain’t God great?
Frank said: “However, to suggest that a vote for any candidate other than the two is a truly viable option is beyond reasonable.”
History teaches us a different lesson. These things can turn quickly.
One example from the Holy Land (Alabama), in 1987 nobody was more surprised that Guy Hunt was elected Governor of Alabama than Gov. Hunt himself. He was the annual token Republican candidate when elections were determined in the Democratic Primaries. This all turned on the outrage the folks in Alabama had over the two leading men for the Democratic ticket (Charles Graddic and Bill Baxley). Hunt was the first Republican Governor of Alabama since the Occupation.
His election was no more likely than someone like Goode winning today.
Yeah, that makes total sense, because in the General election he ran against both democratic candidates. So he was the third man in the race in the general election
Oh, wait. No he didn’t. it was a choice between him and one democratic candidate.
Next time you’re going to pick an example, try one that actually makes sense. The only two people who have any chance at all of being elected are Barak “Dwight’s beloved president” Obama and Mitt Romney.
Donald,
I’m willing to put my view of “unreasonableness” to the test.
Show me one time a Third Party Candidate that never received more than 5 to 10 percent in the primaries was even a contender–even close. Was anything but a spoiler.
Clock ticking . . . . Time’s up. Never!
In a sense your proposition and mine are seeking the same thing: we are both grasping at straws. Mine has a name: Mitt Romney.