PDA

View Full Version : McChristians (article)




heavenlyboy34
11-12-2008, 08:51 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance154.html

McChristians

by Laurence M. Vance

Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site
DIGG THIS

To the dismay of many Christians, John McCain was not elected president of the United States. Were it not for the support of evangelicals and other conservative Christians, McCain would have been more soundly defeated in what was probably his last election. It didn’t really matter what McCain believed or didn’t believe; these Christians turned out in droves to vote for him because he was a Republican. As bad as Barack Obama was, most Christians who voted for McCain would have voted Republican no matter who the Democratic and Republican nominees were.

Throughout the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, Yellow Dog Democrats in the South consistently voted for Democrats no matter who the Democratic and Republican nominees were. The idea was that they would rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican. Christians who consistently vote Republican – and especially after decades of Republican compromises and sellouts – are even worse. They would vote for a dead yellow dog over a Democrat.

But it gets even worse. Instead of Christians admitting how detrimental to freedom the Bush administration was, acknowledging that McCain was a pathetic excuse for a real conservative, conceding that the Republicans badly disappointed them once again, holding their noses shut with the firmest of grips, positioning in front of their mouths a barf bag saved from their last airline trip, closing their eyes tightly – and then voting for McCain, some Christians, or rather, McChristians, actively supported him. Some even went so far as to put McCain/Palin bumper stickers on their cars, signs in their yards, and buttons on their shirts.

It is bad enough for a Christian to do evil by voting for what he thinks is the lesser of two evils; it is another thing to embrace, defend, and promote evil.

Whenever I hear anyone, and especially conservative Christian Republicans, talk about voting for the lesser of two evils, I think of an election between Stalin and Hitler. I can just imagine one group of people saying that they are voting for Stalin because Hitler believes in a, b, and c, while the other side says that they are voting for Hitler because Stalin believes in x, y, and z.

This analogy really fits the recent election since the choice was between a socialist or national socialist. The newspaper headlines for the day after Election Day should all have read: SOCIALIST WINS OVER NATIONAL SOCIALIST.

As bad as Obama is, it doesn’t change the fact that the Republicans deserved to lose. But because the Democrats didn’t deserve to win, some Christians thought they faced a dilemma and, after assuming the position outlined above, voted for McCain.

But there was no dilemma. There were other choices on the ballot – like Chuck Baldwin, a conservative Christian who is miles ahead of McCain when it comes to being a real conservative. But it comes as no surprise that Baldwin was rejected since Ron Paul was likewise rejected in the Republican primaries.

Christians also had the option of abstaining "from all appearance of evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22); that is, not voting. For the Christian, it is better to endure an evil than to commit one. Even if McCain is the lesser of two evils, he is still evil. And it is never right to do evil. Period. The Apostle Paul said it was slanderously reported of him that he believed in a philosophy of "let us do evil that good may come" (Romans 3:8). But that is the philosophy of many Christians.

But is McCain the lesser of two evils? Consider his record:

* McCain scores a dismal 36 on the New American magazine’s Freedom index.
* McCain is worse on foreign policy than Bush.
* McCain joined with Ted Kennedy to sponsor an illegal-alien amnesty bill (S.1033, 2005).
* McCain is a CFR member who supports expanding the power of the UN.
* McCain has voted against income tax, capital gains, and estate tax cuts.
* McCain was rated an F– on gun issues by Gun Owners of America in 2004 and 2006.
* McCain is the Republican behind the attack on free speech known as McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.
* McCain supports draconian environmentalist legislation.

Both McCain and Obama voted for the Wall Street bailout bill. Both support more government intervention to "fix" the economy. Both support the war on drugs and the war on terror. Both support the Federal Reserve. Both support maintaining the welfare state and the warfare state. And as Anthony Gregory pointed out before the election: "Both are for preserving virtually everything the government does" and "neither proposes to abolish anything."

McCain is marginally better on some issues than Obama, but how hard is that? There is not a dime’s worth of difference between McCain and Obama when it comes to issues of substance like peace, liberty, property, free markets, sound money, and the size and scope of government.

I suppose that the main reason Christians think that McCain is less of an evil than Obama is the abortion issue. There is no question that Obama’s views on abortion are reprehensible. But then he doesn’t claim to be pro-life like McCain does. If McCain is so pro-life then why did he vote to confirm to the U.S. Supreme Court pro-abortion justices like Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter? Why did he consider the pro-abortion senator Joe Lieberman for his vice presidential running mate? Why does he think it is okay to kill babies who had the misfortune to be conceived via rape or incest? Why has he voted for Health and Human Services Title X funding for Planned Parenthood?

And then there is the issue of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and God knows where else the U.S. military will be sent on the next mission of death and destruction. There is no ethical difference between being rabidly pro-abortion and being rabidly pro-war. Obama is the former and McCain is the latter – but both positions are anything but pro-life. Killing babies outside of the womb in Iraq is just as much an evil as killing babies inside the womb in America.

But far worse than voting for the perceived lesser of two evils is championing evil. Christians who embraced, defended, and promoted John McCain because he was a Republican and was not Barack Obama should be ashamed of themselves for being pragmatic instead of being dogmatic. They should also be embarrassed, not only that they were so uninformed about McCain (I guess they relied too much on those Christian Coalition voter guides), but because about the only thing they could think of to say about him started with either "Barack Obama is" or "Barack Obama will."

How shallow and how pathetic are these McChristians. They can be counted on to enthusiastically and unconditionally support the next litter of yellow dog Republican candidates.

November 12, 2008

virgil47
11-12-2008, 09:16 PM
So, if you had to choose between Billy the Kid and Wild Bill Hickok as the new leader of your community you would choose neither because they are both basically bad people? Do you really believe that abortion is the same as war? If so do you then believe that there is no justification for war under any circumstance? The same question applies to abortion. Is there no instance when abortion is acceptable? If this is true then you must live in a very black and white world.

heavenlyboy34
11-12-2008, 09:28 PM
So, if you had to choose between Billy the Kid and Wild Bill Hickok as the new leader of your community you would choose neither because they are both basically bad people? Do you really believe that abortion is the same as war? If so do you then believe that there is no justification for war under any circumstance? The same question applies to abortion. Is there no instance when abortion is acceptable? If this is true then you must live in a very black and white world.

To your first question, yes-I would say neither. To your second question, abortion is not exactly the same as war. War causes mass casualties in lives, income, and property (this is not to justify abortion, but to make a distinction). War can be justified (or unjustified) by following solid logic(which goes beyond the scope of this particular thread, I think).

We can find instances where abortion is acceptable, of course. At the same time, this cannot be determined by a central authority, but by those who are actually involved in specific situations.

virgil47
11-12-2008, 09:46 PM
So if by choosing neither you ensured that Billy the Kid became your leader would you not be responsible for any atrocities that he may cause? You see when you are faced with a choice you must accept the consequences of that choice. As for abortion if society decides that it is perfectly ok does that make it right? If society says it is against the law does that make it wrong in all circumstances? If some circumstances exist under which abortion is acceptable should not these circumstances be codified so as the general population understands what is considered acceptable? If abortion is determined to be acceptable because a fetus is not considered a human until it is born how can an individual that kills a pregnant woman be charged with two murders?

moostraks
11-13-2008, 05:38 AM
So if by choosing neither you ensured that Billy the Kid became your leader would you not be responsible for any atrocities that he may cause? You see when you are faced with a choice you must accept the consequences of that choice. As for abortion if society decides that it is perfectly ok does that make it right? If society says it is against the law does that make it wrong in all circumstances? If some circumstances exist under which abortion is acceptable should not these circumstances be codified so as the general population understands what is considered acceptable? If abortion is determined to be acceptable because a fetus is not considered a human until it is born how can an individual that kills a pregnant woman be charged with two murders?

How in the world can you justify that by not voting Billy the Kid got elected??? The people that vote for a particular person are the ones who elected the person, not the people abstaining. This would imply that everyone must be psychic and forecast the future so that they can predict the appropriate way to vote so their vote counts. Hogwash!!!!

Voting is to put forth ones wishes for the person they (the individual voter voting) feel is best qualified for the job. It is not a beauty contest or a horse race. Furthermore, some felt that Wyatt Earp was the most qualified and voted for him. The fact that all forms of comunication were controlled by Billy's handlers who also were responsible for counting the votes negates your image of the Earp voters being culpable for Billy's win.....

moostraks
11-13-2008, 05:40 AM
well said...It is a shame that these Christians are who non-Christians believe represent the faith. It is so far from accurate, but we shall see what the future holds for them.

heavenlyboy34
11-13-2008, 10:20 AM
well said...It is a shame that these Christians are who non-Christians believe represent the faith. It is so far from accurate, but we shall see what the future holds for them.

I agree. I think that much of the philosophy of Christians is sound (as Jefferson showed). However, ever since it was taken over by mere mortals, it has been exploited by men with evil intentions. :(

heavenlyboy34
11-13-2008, 10:53 AM
So if by choosing neither you ensured that Billy the Kid became your leader would you not be responsible for any atrocities that he may cause? You see when you are faced with a choice you must accept the consequences of that choice. As for abortion if society decides that it is perfectly ok does that make it right? If society says it is against the law does that make it wrong in all circumstances? If some circumstances exist under which abortion is acceptable should not these circumstances be codified so as the general population understands what is considered acceptable? If abortion is determined to be acceptable because a fetus is not considered a human until it is born how can an individual that kills a pregnant woman be charged with two murders?

How could I be held responsible for Billy the Kid's actions if I neither voted for him nor signed any legal instrument to that effect? :confused: Absent of these proofs, there is no way I could be held responsible.

I think I've made it clear that I don't believe in "crimes" against that amorphous entity called "society". This is simply how some pseudo-intellectuals try to shift blame around and create bourgois government where none is called for.

You've pointed out the core problem with centralized government in your assertions-it cannot possibly comprehend the myriad needs, wants, and desires among individuals.

Gotta go, but let me know if I need to clarify something.

LittleLightShining
11-13-2008, 02:25 PM
Wow! Great article.

Last week I went to a meeting of disgruntled GOPers not really knowing what to expect. Well, as it turns out these folks were mostly very traditional conservatives and Evangelicals. I was thrilled to meet a whole bunch of Ron Paul supporters who I was previously unaware of. The conversation took a few turns here and there but I brought up the pragmatic voting for John McCain and got 3 answers: "I voted for Chuck Baldwin," "I voted for McCain because at least he's pro-life" and "I wrote in Alan Keyes."

They were discussing an organized effort to take back the VT GOP with a slate of candidates that are both pro-life and pro-Biblical marriage. I am pro-life but I don't necessarily feel like the govt should be legislating personal relationships. What's ironic is that later that day I was talking to a civilly-unioned lesbian couple who told me they voted for McCain and Brian Dubie (VT's Republican Lieutenant Governor who is unabashedly pro-life and anti-civil union). Go figure.

I still don't really get the whole idea of Christians voting for McCain because he's a Republican-- especially in Vermont. I mean, I get it, but as a Christian it repulses me. For some of these folks to sit there and tell me that sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils is so contradictory to what they say they believe-- as was so well put in the article.

Thanks for posting that.