Religious beliefs of political candidates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
First - let me start by saying that this thread is not being started to discuss political views. There is enough of that going on in other threads. My sole concern is the issue of a candidates religious views and how that should effect the response of Christians.

Governor Mitt Romney of Mass. is going to run for President. He is a Mormon. At least in the Republican primaries he will be running against a number of politicians who also are not believers. If Governor Romney were to win the nomination he may very well run against Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. Neither are Christians. We are not a theocracy. Our leader does not have to be a Christian. Our consitution does not say that is a requirement for being President. Some believe that George W. Bush is a Christian. That may or may not be. Bill Clinton? No. George H. Bush? No. Ronald Reagan? No. Jimmy Carter? Probably not. I could go on.

My question is this: what difference would it be if a Mormon were President as opposed to a Baptist "in name only" who is not a Christian? Again, I don't care about their politics. I'm not interested right now on immigration reform or the war in Iraq. I'm inquiring as to what our attitude should be to candidates that are unbelievers.

Thoughts?
 

JasonGoodwin

Puritan Board Sophomore
Consider the next POTUS and the current Congress

Bill,

Here's some food for thought:

"This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." Daniel 4:17
 

Bandguy

Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't think their religious affiliation or lack thereof, makes a bit of difference about their politics. Just look at Kennedy, Clinton, and Kerry. All three come from religious backgrounds that are historically very pro-life. It doesn't reflect in their beliefs. I generally don't pay attention to what their religious beliefs are when electing a politician. My attitude is that they are political leaders and not my pastor.
 

MrMerlin777

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
"I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian."....


....."I say this not because I would teach that worldly rulers ought not be Christians, or that a Christian cannot bear the sword and serve God in temporal government. Would to God they were all Christians, or that no one could be a prince unless he were a Christian! Things would be better than they now are, and the Turk would not be so powerful. But what I want to do is to keep a distinction between the callings and offices, so that everyone can see to what God has called him and fulfil the duties of his office faithfully and sincerely in the service of God (Luther’s Works, vol. 46, p. 166)."



:2cents:
 

ChristopherPaul

Puritan Board Senior
I remember being taught in my 9th grade civics class that our nation’s smartest president is often recognized to be Woodrow Wilson.

At the time I didn't think too much of it, but now it all makes sense considering his "religious beliefs". :smug:

;)
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
I remember being taught in my 9th grade civics class that our nation’s smartest president is often recognized to be Woodrow Wilson.

At the time I didn't think too much of it, but now it all makes sense considering his "religious beliefs". :smug:

;)

My recommendation is to do some more research on Wilson's religious beliefs before jumping on his bandwagon.
 

No Longer A Libertine

Puritan Board Senior
I remember being taught in my 9th grade civics class that our nation’s smartest president is often recognized to be Woodrow Wilson.

At the time I didn't think too much of it, but now it all makes sense considering his "religious beliefs". :smug:

;)
Wilson was not that good a president if you like Wilson you should adore George W. Bush, Wilsonianism is the blue print of the neocon foreign policy.

That is why I'm astounded that liberals don't adore W., he practices the idealogy of many of their supposed heroes.

Bill Clinton had a high IQ, didn't use it.

Ultimately we are Rome and Ceasar can be of this world so long as he rules justly.

Let us pray for the wisdom of our leaders inspite of themselves if need be.
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
2 Sam. 23.3: The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.

Matthew Henry on 2 Sam. 23.3:

First, The duty of magistrates enjoined them. When a king was spoken to from God he was not to be complimented with the height of his dignity and the extent of his power, but to be told his duty. "Must is for the king," we say. Here is a must for the king: He must be just, ruling in the fear of God; and so must all inferior magistrates in their places. Let rulers remember that they rule over men—not over beasts which they may enslave and abuse at pleasure, but over reasonable creatures and of the same rank with themselves. They rule over men that have their follies and infirmities, and therefore must be borne with. They rule over men, but under God, and for him; and therefore, 1. They must be just, both to those over whom they rule, in allowing them their rights and properties, and between those over whom they rule, using their power to right the injured against the injurious; see Deut. i. 16, 17. It is not enough that they do no wrong, but they must not suffer wrong to be done. 2. They must rule in the fear of God, that is, they must themselves be possessed with a fear of God, by which they will be effectually restrained from all acts of injustice and oppression. Nehemiah was so (Neh. v. 15, So did not I, because of the fear of God), and Joseph, Gen. xliii. 18. They must also endeavor to promote the fear of God (that is, the practice of religion) among those over whom they rule. The magistrate is to be the keeper of both tables, and to protect both godliness and honesty.

Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland:

While fully entitled by the civil law to all the rights of membership in the governing society, Christians, because of their primary allegiance to Christ, ought not to avail themselves of the exercise of those rights when they conflict with His supremacy. In particular, Christians should vote only for candidates for political office who recognise the kingship of Jesus Christ by:-

(a) giving evidence of consistent Christian character;

(b) promising to frame all their policies in accordance with the Word of God and to resist all pressures of political expediency and party discipline which might compromise such obedience;

(c) making an explicit declaration of dissent from everything within their sphere of government which is contrary to the Word of God and pledging themselves to work for public and national recognition of Christ;

(d) refusing, where applicable, to take the present oath of allegiance, and making instead an affirmation of loyalty which would specifically safeguard their primary loyalty to Jesus Christ.

John Calvin, Institutes, Book IV, Chap. 20, Sec. 9:

9. The duty of magistrates, its nature, as described by the word of God, and the things in which it consists, I will here indicate in passing. That it extends to both tables of the law, did Scripture not teach, we might learn from profane writers; for no man has discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the common weal, without beginning with religion and divine worship. Thus all have confessed that no polity can be successfully established unless piety be its first care, and that those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men. Seeing then that among philosophers religion holds the first place, and that the same thing has always been observed with the universal consent of nations, Christian princes and magistrates may be ashamed of their heartlessness if they make it not their care. We have already shown that this office is specially assigned them by God, and indeed it is right that they exert themselves in asserting and defending the honour of him whose vicegerents they are, and by whose favour they rule. Hence in Scripture holy kings are especially praised for restoring the worship of God when corrupted or overthrown, or for taking care that religion flourished under them in purity and safety. On the other hand, the sacred history sets down anarchy among the vices, when it states that there was no king in Israel, and, therefore, every one did as he pleased (Judges 21:25). This rebukes the folly of those who would neglect the care of divine things, and devote themselves merely to the administration of justice among men; as if God had appointed rulers in his own name to decide earthly controversies, and omitted what was of far greater moment, his own pure worship as prescribed by his law. Such views are adopted by turbulent men, who, in their eagerness to make all kinds of innovations with impunity, would fain get rid of all the vindicators of violated piety. In regard to the second table of the law, Jeremiah addresses rulers, “Thus saith the Lord, Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood” (Jer. 22:3). To the same effect is the exhortation in the Psalm, “Defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; rid them out of the hand of the wicked” (Psalm 82:3, 4). Moses also declared to the princes whom he had substituted for himself, “Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great: ye shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is God’s” (Deut. 1:16). I say nothing as to such passages as these, “He shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt;” “neither shall he multiply wives to himself; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold;” “he shall write him a copy of this law in a book;” “and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God;” “that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren” (Deut. 17:16-20). In here explaining the duties of magistrates, my exposition is intended not so much for the instruction of magistrates themselves, as to teach others why there are magistrates, and to what end they have been appointed by God. We say, therefore, that they are the ordained guardians and vindicators of public innocence, modesty, honour, and tranquillity, so that it should be their only study to provide for the common peace and safety. Of these things David declares that he will set an example when he shall have ascended the throne. “A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person. Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer. Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me” (Psalm 101:4-6). But as rulers cannot do this unless they protect the good against the injuries of the bad, and give aid and protection to the oppressed, they are armed with power to curb manifest evil-doers and criminals, by whose misconduct the public tranquillity is disturbed or harassed. For we have full experience of the truth of Solon’s saying, that all public matters depend on reward and punishment; that where these are wanting, the whole discipline of states totters and falls to pieces. For in the minds of many the love of equity and justice grows cold, if due honour be not paid to virtue, and the licentiousness of the wicked cannot be restrained, without strict discipline and the infliction of punishment. The two things are comprehended by the prophet when he enjoins kings and other rulers to execute “judgment and righteousness” (Jer. 21:12; 22:3). It is righteousness (justice) to take charge of the innocent, to defend and avenge them, and set them free: it is judgment to withstand the audacity of the wicked, to repress their violence, and punish their faults.

William Einwechter, Biblical Standards for Choosing Civil Magistrates
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
I remember being taught in my 9th grade civics class that our nation’s smartest president is often recognized to be Woodrow Wilson.

At the time I didn't think too much of it, but now it all makes sense considering his "religious beliefs". :smug:

;)

He was a Presbyterian, to be sure, but his educational background (Davidson and Princeton) and other matters have always lead me to view him as "liberal" in his theological orientation, much like that Presbyterian minister portrayed in A River Runs Runs Through It. Certainly, he was an internationalist in policy formulation.

John J. Reilly put it well, I think:

Old-fashioned Presbyterianism has a reputation as one of the more somber versions of Christianity, but the Presbyterianism of the Wilson family was neither gloomy or old-fashioned: this reviewer was reminded of the minister’s family in Norman MacLean’s novel, A River Runs Through It. As the biographer puts it:

Indeed, the religious faith the young Wilson derived from his father’s teaching was not the sort manifesting itself only in dark moments, but grew stronger in times of confidence and elation when God’s watchfulness seemed to be validated by outward experience. The coming together of worldly good fortune with a feeling of inner blessedness could make the Presbyterian of liberal faith, as it made Wilson in his happiest periods, a charismatic figure.

This, I think, sheds a bit of light on Wilson's religious views.

As for his intelligence, certainly he was gifted intellectually. But I rather agree with John F. Kennedy who said:

I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. [Address at a White House dinner honoring Nobel Prize winners (April 1962)]
 

calgal

Puritan Board Graduate
"I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian."....


....."I say this not because I would teach that worldly rulers ought not be Christians, or that a Christian cannot bear the sword and serve God in temporal government. Would to God they were all Christians, or that no one could be a prince unless he were a Christian! Things would be better than they now are, and the Turk would not be so powerful. But what I want to do is to keep a distinction between the callings and offices, so that everyone can see to what God has called him and fulfil the duties of his office faithfully and sincerely in the service of God (Luther’s Works, vol. 46, p. 166)."



:2cents:

Serious question: how does this quote apply to outright heretics (like unto Servetus)? :2cents: The mormons are latter day gnostics with a hyper arminian twist. That and the control exerted over the lives of their adherents (Romney is quite the faithful mormon) makes a true believing mormon a candidate I cannot and will not vote for.
 

JasonGoodwin

Puritan Board Sophomore
Wilson and the creation of the Central Bank

My recommendation is to do some more research on Wilson's religious beliefs before jumping on his bandwagon.
I can give one reason why I would not be quick to jump on Wilson's bandwagon. From what I understand, he signed into law the creation of the Federal Reserve (which is another name for a Central Bank). According to Joe Battaglia of www.goldline.com, our Founding Fathers were completely opposed to the idea of a Central Bank. Supposedly, they knew that Central Banks control economies. It happened in Europe, and it eventually made its way over here.

That's my :2cents: , depending on how much stock you put in them (pun intended).

Thoughts, anyone?
 

ChristopherPaul

Puritan Board Senior
I am not a Woodrow Wilson fan. He is considered one of the nation’s smartest presidents. Later I realized he is the nations only Presbyterian President. Whether he was a good Presbyterian or not, I don’t know.

There is a reason we have emoticons, in this case note that the "wink" was included.

:)
 

No Longer A Libertine

Puritan Board Senior
I am not a Woodrow Wilson fan. He is considered one of the nation’s smartest presidents. Later I realized he is the nations only Presbyterian President. Whether he was a good Presbyterian or not, I don’t know.

There is a reason we have emoticons, in this case note that the "wink" was included.

:)
He is NOT the LONE professing Presbyterian.

Andrew Jackson attended and was raised within a Presbyterian denomination and championed "Manifest Destiny" on the strength of his Calvinistic upbringing.

James Polk was raised a Presbyterian although he married a Methodist woman and often attended services with her, he completed 'Manifest Destiny" through his application of a Calvinistic heritage.

Benjamin Harrison was a Presbyterian clergy at one point as was James Garfield.

Dwight Eisenhower grew up in a Presbyterian church and is sometimes listed as Presbyterian.

Ronald Reagan was a member of an LA PCUSA congregation although clearly not particularly Reformed himself.

As for our Presidents who actually had sound theology in their hearts one can point to James Madison wholeheartedly, I hear great things of Washington, Monroe professed faith in Christ as savior and was Reformed just like Madison although they were both Episcoplalians.

Martin Van Buren was Dutch Reformed, John Tyler a Christian man in practice and deed, Calvin Coolidge a Reformed Congregationalist thus and son of a preacher thus the first name Calvin.

Harry Truman was a professing believer.

I'm afraid that is where the Christian heritage of the American Presidency seems to end.
 

Theoretical

Puritan Board Professor
He is NOT the LONE professing Presbyterian.

Andrew Jackson attended and was raised within a Presbyterian denomination and championed "Manifest Destiny" on the strength of his Calvinistic upbringing.

James Polk was raised a Presbyterian although he married a Methodist woman and often attended services with her, he completed 'Manifest Destiny" through his application of a Calvinistic heritage.

Benjamin Harrison was a Presbyterian clergy at one point as was James Garfield.

Dwight Eisenhower grew up in a Presbyterian church and is sometimes listed as Presbyterian.

Ronald Reagan was a member of an LA PCUSA congregation although clearly not particularly Reformed himself.

As for our Presidents who actually had sound theology in their hearts one can point to James Madison wholeheartedly, I hear great things of Washington, Monroe professed faith in Christ as savior and was Reformed just like Madison although they were both Episcoplalians.

Martin Van Buren was Dutch Reformed, John Tyler a Christian man in practice and deed, Calvin Coolidge a Reformed Congregationalist thus and son of a preacher thus the first name Calvin.

Harry Truman was a professing believer.

I'm afraid that is where the Christian heritage of the American Presidency seems to end.
Washington I'd leave off that list of sound Christians. He was much more heavily into the Masonic Lodge and its specific breed of civil religion than many of his peers.
 

No Longer A Libertine

Puritan Board Senior
Washington I'd leave off that list of sound Christians. He was much more heavily into the Masonic Lodge and its specific breed of civil religion than many of his peers.
He was a Mason as were many men ,but there were those that treated it as a social setting and not a cult.

By and large I think the secular world is quick to try and discredit any CHristian origins to out founding fathers out of fear it may legitamize some of the rebukes against them.

He was a sinful man but to my knowledge not hostile to Christianity and loved the company of believing men for discussion.
 

No Longer A Libertine

Puritan Board Senior
He was a Presbyterian, to be sure, but his educational background (Davidson and Princeton) and other matters have always lead me to view him as "liberal" in his theological orientation, much like that Presbyterian minister portrayed in A River Runs Runs Through It. Certainly, he was an internationalist in policy formulation.

John J. Reilly put it well, I think:



This, I think, sheds a bit of light on Wilson's religious views.

As for his intelligence, certainly he was gifted intellectually. But I rather agree with John F. Kennedy who said:

This link seeks to claim Issac Newton was a Unitarian, I have been introduced with ample evidence that he believed in Jesus Christ as savior and not a Ghandi.
 

kvanlaan

Puritan Board Doctor
With regards to the Founders, I have posted portions of this before, but here it is in its entirety.

Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of The Declaration of Independence were orthodox, deeply committed Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention.

It is the same congress that formed the American Bible Society. Immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of scripture for the people of this nation.

Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, is still remembered for his words, "Give me liberty or give me death." But in current textbooks the context of these words is deleted. Here is what he said: "An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

These sentences have been erased from our textbooks.

Was Patrick Henry a Christian? The following year, 1776, he wrote this "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."

Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote on the front of his well- worn Bible: "I am a Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also."

Consider these words from George Washington, the Father of our Nation, in his farewell speech on September 19, 1796:

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Was George Washington a Christian? Consider these words from his personal prayer book: "Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb and purge my heart by the Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of thy son, Jesus Christ."

Consider these words by John Adams, our second president, who also served as chairman of the American Bible Society.

In an address to military leaders he said, "We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

How about our first Court Justice, John Jay?

He stated that when we select our national leaders, if we are to preserve our Nation, we must select Christians. "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, was the sixth U.S. President.

He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role. On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States reaffirmed this truth when he wrote, "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."

In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The congressof the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."

William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the "Schoolmaster of the Nation."

Listen to these words of Mr. McGuffey: "The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology."

Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first.

Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the original Harvard Student Handbook rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the scriptures:

"Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him (Proverbs 2:3)."

For over 100 years, more than 50% of all Harvard graduates were pastors!

It is clear from history that the Bible and the Christian faith, were foundational in our educational and judicial system. However in 1947, there was a radical change of direction in the Supreme Court.

Here is the prayer that was banished:

"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee. We beg Thy blessings upon us and our parents and our teachers and our country.

Amen."

In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading was outlawed as unconstitutional in the public school system. The court offered this justification: "If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could and have been psychologically harmful to children."

Bible reading was now unconstitutional , though the Bible was quoted 94 percent of the time by those who wrote our constitution and shaped our Nation and its system of education and justice and government.

In 1965, the Courts denied as unconstitutional the rights of a student in the public school cafeteria to bow his head and pray audibly for his food. In 1980, Stone vs. Graham outlawed the Ten Commandments in our public schools.

The Supreme Court said this: "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments were to have any effect at all, it would be to induce school children to read them. And if they read them, meditated upon them, and perhaps venerated and observed them, this is not a permissible objective."

Is it not a permissible objective to allow our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments?

James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, said this: "We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."

Today we are asking God to bless America. But how can He bless a Nation that has departed so far from Him?

Most of what you read in this article has been erased from our textbooks. Revisionists have rewritten history to remove the truth about our country's Christian roots.

I know that not everything in there is dead on (for example, G. Washington, in the light of other posts, does not fare as well as he does above.)

However, in the end, why don't these sorts of folks ever run for office any more?
 

No Longer A Libertine

Puritan Board Senior
With regards to the Founders, I have posted portions of this before, but here it is in its entirety.



I know that not everything in there is dead on (for example, G. Washington, in the light of other posts, does not fare as well as he does above.)

However, in the end, why don't these sorts of folks ever run for office any more?
Probably because they were basically reformers themselves and breaking away from the powerful empire, those that run today hope to abtain the reigns of power for the American Empire afterall the British did play Greek to America's Rome.
 

ADKing

Puritan Board Junior
Getting back to the original question, I would say that it makes a huge difference what a candidate's religious beliefs are. An atheist, Mormon, or even even nominal "Christians" are unlikely to push for an official recognition of King Jesus in society and constitution. Nor are they likely to make laws consistent with the revealed will of God. Now this does not mean that they cannot do any good as magistrates, but they cannot fulfill all the duties of a magistrate.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
I would not vote for a Mormon :2cents:

Adam - and if the choice was between Romney and Hillary....would you abstain from voting? Given the fact that low voter turnout historically aids the democrats, not voting is a practical vote for the democrats.
 

calgal

Puritan Board Graduate
Adam - and if the choice was between Romney and Hillary....would you abstain from voting? Given the fact that low voter turnout historically aids the democrats, not voting is a practical vote for the democrats.

I would vote for Hillary if those were my choices. Speaking as an exmormon, the idea of a mormon in the Oval Office chills my blood.
 

ADKing

Puritan Board Junior
Adam - and if the choice was between Romney and Hillary....would you abstain from voting? Given the fact that low voter turnout historically aids the democrats, not voting is a practical vote for the democrats.

I am not convinced it is ever biblical to do something evil that a relative good (if you think a Romney presidencey would be such) may come.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top