Sacred Cows
Twelve years ago I loaded my baby in a backpack, my toddler in a stroller and bundled up my three other children to campaign in my suburban Bay Area neighborhood for George Bush, Sr. We even made a scarecrow for the front porch with a Bush banner on its chest. Steve and I braved the wilds of the streets of San Francisco, getting pelted with vegetables by sodomites, in order to hear Dan Quayle speak at a fundraising dinner in Chinatown. We were diehard Republicans.
I sobbed bitterly when Bill Clinton won. I couldn’t believe that our country would trade the opportunity to return to “traditional values” for the immorality which Clinton and his gang stood for. But when the rampant immorality of the Democrats grew bolder, the Republicans rallied to hold back the tide. I eagerly listened to Rush Limbaugh as he warned about the latest outrage, and I cheered when the good guys drafted the Contract With America, promising to fight for limited government and even calling for the abolishment of the Department of Education behemoth.
How the mighty have fallen.
I’ve held my breath for twelve years, waiting for those promised changes, but I’m getting blue in the face and needing to take a deep breath. I’m also getting red in the face as I listen to those who supposedly represent the conservative viewpoint say and do reprehensible things with impunity. The blood is draining from my face as I watch those who ought to know better cheer the organization formerly known as the Grand Old Party. If it’s true that an elephant always remembers, then it’s a poor mascot for the GOP which has forgotten its traditions and its promises. A chameleon might be a better choice…adapting to the circumstances rather than sticking with their principles.
I don’t know why my Christian Republican friends think that their values are going to get any more respect than they have before now, if they reelect President Bush. As a lameduck president, he has even less incentive to throw crumbs to those of us who still cling to the threads of morality. I don’t really care how many times he says he prays to God or claims Christianity. If he does not do the things which demonstrate obedience to God’s commands, if he promotes policies which are antithetical to biblical Christianity, then I cannot support him.
This week’s Republican convention is a vivid example of how far from the base the party has drifted. I have only been able to watch snippets of it, but I heard an interview with Rudolph “Big Tent” Giuliani, the speech by our illustrious governor, the cute little introduction the Bush twins gave their mother and Laura Bush’s speech last night. Here are a few reasons I’m even more certain that there is nothing left in the Republican party for our family to support:
The convocation for the convention was given by a Muslim imam. This demonstrates a lack of understanding about both the biblical foundations of our nation which have led to any blessing it has experienced to this point, and that the basis for the conflict this country is experiencing with Muslim nations is religious, not political. See Doug’s Blog for further explanation of the serious implications of this promotion of idolatry.
While it was not perfect, the Contract With America was a promising movement in Congress among the Republican legislators, demonstrating an understanding that there was a need for limiting the power of the federal government. Though it is the tenth anniversary of those landmark promises, the contract was pointedly ignored this week, as were many of its principles. In fact, Laura Bush boasted in her speech, “The No Child Left Behind Act provides historic levels of funding with an unprecedented commitment to higher standards, strong accountability and proven methods of instruction. We are determined to provide a quality education for every child in America.” “We” means the federal government with “our” tax dollars. We’ve been providing a quality education for our children for over 15 years with no help from any tax dollars, and I am not happy that our federal taxes are now unconstitutionally earmarked to continue bloating the Department of Education.
The repeated emphasis on the president’s war on terror, “so that all children can grow up in a more peaceful world.” I keep hearing how he has liberated the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Again, it seems that this party has a short memory. I remember when we went to war against Saddam Hussein because there was incontrovertible evidence that he had weapons of mass destruction, ready to be used against the United States. Later, we learned that this assertion was based on faulty intelligence, and the reasons to support the undeclared, unconstitutional war keep changing. As nice as it would be to provide freedom for the whole world, again I wonder why nobody considers that there is no place in our Constitution that gives authority to send American soldiers to die around the globe so that Middle Eastern women can go “back to work” and get an education. Especially disturbing is the support for American women participating in combat roles in this action. Mrs. Bush praised a stay-at-home dad:
A dad whose wife is deployed in Iraq recently wrote about what he is learning as he struggles to rear his three children alone. “I have ruined at least three loads of laundry,” he said, “Once you turn everything pink, it stays pink.” He goes on: “I have learned what our soldiers’ wives have known for generations: hope and grief and perseverance.”
Speaking of ignoring the constitution, I have repeatedly heard that George Bush is a president who upholds that founding document, which he swore to do. The same people who praise him for this also praise how he signed two bills which are the biggest transfers of wealth in our nation’s history: providing prescription drug coverage in Medicare to the tune of $400 billion, and the $190 billion farm subsidy bill.
Vice President Cheney, whose lesbian daughter is an important part of the reelection team, recently said that “people ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.” The lineup for the convention was filled with so-called moderate Republicans who not only echo this sentiment, they encourage an emphasis on “gay rights” and some even think that sodomites ought to have official government sanction for their perverse relationships. This Christian president even signed a bill extending death benefits to the sodomite partners of firefighters and police officers who die in the line of duty. He also appointed an openly homosexual ambassador to Romania, with Secretary of State Colin Powell publicly acknowledging the man’s “partner.” Kelly McGinley can tell you much more about how this administration has been friendly to the homosexual lobby.
It is sad to see the way political figures are using their young, attractive daughters to add sex appeal to their campaigns, in a culturally relevant and irreverent manner, lending credence to the depravity of popular culture. Here’s an excerpt from Barbara and Jenna’s speech last night:
It’s great to be here. We love Arnold. Isn’t he awesome? Thanks to him, if one of us ever decides to marry a Democrat, nobody can complain. Except maybe our Grandmother, Barbara. And, if she didn’t like it, we would definitely hear about it. We already know she doesn’t like some of our clothes, or music, or most of the TV shows we watch. Granny, we love you dearly, but you’re just not very hip. She thinks “Sex in the City” is something married people do, but never talk about. We spent the last four years trying to stay out of the spotlight. Sometimes we did a little better than others. We kept trying to explain to Dad that when we were young and irresponsible. Well, we were young and irresponsible.
I was embarrassed as I heard them say such things to their grandmother, who was sitting in the crowd. It was not funny—it was a rude and dishonoring way to speak. And it was part of the carefully crafted program to set the atmosphere for the campaign and the image of the party. “Look at us, we’re cooler than the Democrats.” What happened to statesmanship? What happened to traditional values?
I’m not promoting traditional values…I care about biblical values. My hope is to point out that the party which most Christians feel comfortable with does not feel comfortable with us. The things we hold dear are not just ignored, now they are mocked by many of the leaders of the GOP. We are not electing a king. But the president is a chief magistrate who acts as a covenantal head for our nation, a position which makes him directly responsible to God for every word, every promise, every action. We have a unique opportunity to weigh the pros and cons of his actions for the past four years and make a decision about whether to support him to continue in this position, or to support another. We are responsible to Christ our King for our decision. If there is a righteous man, then we must support the one who will fear and honor God to be the magistrate who represents us. We don’t need to worry about winnability or hanging chads; we need to trust the God who moves the hearts of kings, for the results of the election.
That’s why Steve and I are supporting Michael Peroutka for president.
September 2nd, 2004 at 1:28 am
Peroutka is too Anti-Israel for me. Otherwise he’d probably make the perfect presidential choice. I am an unrepentant, unashamed Bush supporter. Because this is the important issue. This is what keeps America going. America will fall when it seperates the American Flag and the Israeli Flag. Like what Peroutka wishes to do. America probably wouldn’t survive his term in office.
September 2nd, 2004 at 3:00 am
I’ll have a sacred cow burger with a side of fries, please.
September 2nd, 2004 at 4:53 am
Shane, you got a bible verse to back up that "fact"?
September 2nd, 2004 at 6:24 am
Yeah. The Whole Scripture.
September 2nd, 2004 at 6:27 am
"Peroutka is too Anti-Israel for me."
I’m so glad he’s not running for President of Israel, then.
September 2nd, 2004 at 6:52 am
Uh, good answer Shane. Me thinks you need to spend a little less time reading Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye and a little more time reading the scriptures so you could actually back up what you are claiming. I know of no such scripture that makes any referances to America or it’s allegiance to godless Israel. Furthermore I know of no such scripture which claims that America will stand until we seperate our two godless flags. On the other hand we have many scriptures which talk about godless nations, nations who go a whoring after false gods, nations who embrace sodomites and have the blood of millions of innocents on their hands, what qualifies a person for leadership of a country, etc… Carmons link on fearing and honoring God will give you a good list to start with.
September 2nd, 2004 at 7:44 am
Great post, Carmon. How much more un-Christian does this party have to become before Christians finally abandon it?
September 2nd, 2004 at 8:10 am
Great post Carmon. Great question Tim. It is somewhat understandable that a Christian could just be a bit half-witted and miss these things generally, but when they are pointed out so clearly by posts like this and the one at Doug’s blog, you have to wonder what is going on in the mind of a Christian who just bristles and says "Bush is my man, I’m not wasting my vote on some goody-goody third party."
September 2nd, 2004 at 8:20 am
but when they are pointed out so clearly by posts like this and the one at Doug’s blog, you have to wonder what is going on in the mind of a Christian who just bristles and says "Bush is my man, I’m not wasting my vote on some goody-goody third party."
Fear, I think. Fear of being the cause of Kerry winning. I’ve struggled back and forth with the Bush vs. Peroutka thing and have concluded that I cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone who, as Carmon points out, stands for so many unbiblical issues in the name of tolerance, yet claims to be a believer. I don’t doubt Bush’s faith, I just think he must be very ignorant of Scripture to allow the things he does, like letting an imam pray to his god before the convention. Sorry, that’s a huge red flag. There are too many red flags for me. I’m voting my conscience this time, and I should’ve voted my conscience last time. But like I said, fear. This article finally turned my thinking around: http://covenantnews.com/baldwin040528.htm
September 2nd, 2004 at 8:28 am
You wonder why a Christian might cling to a candidate…or vote for a candidate who is less than the Christian leader we would hope for…
I am a afriad that if Kerry becomes President, our country will forever be harmed. (Like Roe v. Wade slipped past the Christians) We are headed socialized everything. Free for all liberalism.
Perhaps wrongly, I think the Republican party will prevent these things. For a time.
I know that Peroutka would be the perfect man to lead our counrty. But I am afraid that a vote for him, is a vote for Kerry.
So, should one take a stand for the better man and watch our counrty go to the wolves?
I am undecided as to what I will do in November.
I am afraid for our country…
and as I have said before this whole topic gives me butterflies in my stomach.
We are watching the Fall of the United States…
I believe God is in control…but I am apprehensive, none the less.
Donna
September 2nd, 2004 at 8:43 am
Yes what I said is a good answer. No, the Bible doesn’t specifically say America however, there are tons of times in the Bible that when a nation turned it’s back on Israel that nation fell. And God does not change. God has sovereignly chosen Israel it has absolutely nothing to do with Israel. A supposedly "Godless nation" that is far less secular then America ever was. America has always been worse then Israel is and yet somehow America is supposed to be seen as a "Christian Nation"?
Has not God the Sovereign right to choose a people He wants? I don’t see what the peoples choices and turning against him and being "Godless" and "Secular" have to do with anything. Or is God not Sovereign?
I question such an inconsistent God as being the true God as God does not lie.
Now you can accept the sovereign choice of God or you can reject it. But as for me I accept it. Israel is God’s sovereignly chosen nation. From beginning, to end.
September 2nd, 2004 at 8:57 am
I do recall seeing scriptures where God warns that those (nations??) who are against Israel will not fare well, but I’m at a total loss of where those were. In the Law perhaps? Shane, can you find them?
September 2nd, 2004 at 9:02 am
Shane, a nation that rejects Jesus as Messiah is not God’s people anymore. Read the New Testament again and notice all the warnings Jesus gave and the apostles reiteratied to the Jews because of their persecution of and rejection of Christ. The church is God’s people (read Matt. 21:40-43 and I Peter 2:9-10). There is nothing to indicate that nations need to give financial or military support to the Jews in order to be blessed. In fact, there is every indication that any nation which rejects God and supports evils such as murder of innocent children and sodomy, will be severely judged. There is no reason to think that America in its current state is in any position to receive any blessing from God.
I do believe that Romans 11 indicates that when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, there will be a revival in Israel, a great conversion to Christ because of the preaching of the gospel. David Chilton said in Paradise Restored: "The Bible promises the restoration of Israel as a people, but not necessarily as a State; nothing requires that the two must go together. Even assuming, however, that there is still a State of Israel when the Jews are converted, Israel would simply be one Christian nation among many, with no special standing…the whole world will become the Kingdom of God, with all nations standing on an equal footing within that Kingdom."
September 2nd, 2004 at 9:18 am
Donna, a vote for Michael Peroutka is a vote for Michael Peroutka. God does not ask us to think "strategically" when deciding whom to support…if you read the article I linked about how to choose a magistrate (by William Einwechter) you will find much biblical support for choosing the one who fears God. It is up to God to determine the outcome.
As for Roe v. Wade and Supreme Court appointments…most of the justices on the court were appointed by Republican presidents, and most of those appointees have turned out to be very liberal. If Kerry were president, anyone he chose to appoint to the court would have to be approved by Congress, which will most likely have a Republican majority.
Every time a Republican has held the highest office, the party faithful have let down their guard and given carte blanche to the most unconstitutional policies in the name of party unity. When a Democrat has been in that position, we have seen much more circumspection on the part of the GOP and many more are energized to fight government encroachment on liberty. If the president and Congress are of opposing parties, there is much more likelihood of gridlock, which is a good thing when you consider how much liberty has been removed the last four years in the name of safety.
I am not saying that I want John Kerry for president. I do not worry about the outcome if he wins, however. Christians are called to trust and obey God, who will determine the outcome. The question is: does God care who we vote for? Of course He does! We need to ask ourselves then if we should support a party which stands for the things I have outlined in this post.
September 2nd, 2004 at 9:20 am
Why Christians support Bush? They are Pragmatists.
If they DON’T vote for BUSH, then Kerry WILL win.
So they support Bush so that Bush will win. As if they are choosing the winner and he will win.
I know that doesn’t work. In 1992 Clinton was elected, depite my positive Bush vote, which was moreso an ANTI-CLINTON vote. I was sickened.
I continued down the pragmatist pathway and voted for the next "best chance to win Republican" and then again, and won’t do that again.
Pertouka is the guy. It’s not about winning, it’s about honoring God. That’s what this is about.
Bush, Kerry, whatever, same kind of thing, not a God honoring man, either of them.
I know of Republicanism as being what was taught to me as right. But it’s not that it’s right. It use to be "moralistic" and the opposite side of "moralistic" is "amoral". Just flip the coin. That’s what we have today.
"Moralisticness" is not God Honoring. It’s extra-Biblical phariseeism-ish.
Republicans are the party of Abolishion, Proabition, and now Abortion. Evil party from day one. Just cleaned up nice to "look moral" as "moralistic" for awhile. Christians have been duped for years and years.
Democrats had a better thing going, but they’ve gone astray as well.
Reform neither. Let them fall apart.
It’s been a long time since another party rose up. Neither of the current Big Two existed since the beginning, exactly.
So the thing is, are we doing this to WIN, or to Honor God?
My political zeal has taught me that honoring God is primary and is that what needs to be done. That and nothing else.
September 2nd, 2004 at 9:32 am
It’s not about winning, it’s about honoring God. That’s what this is about. — Marysue
That’s what it comes down to for me, too.
September 2nd, 2004 at 9:51 am
I am praying about this issue. It doesn’t have to do with my political leanings or trusting that God will sovereignly raise up the correct leader. It has to do with voting against my husband. My choices (right now) are: A)vote for Peroutka (and my concience) against my husband, B)vote for Bush (against my concience) with my husband, C)not vote at all. Voting for Kerry is not an option! There have been many issues, though, that as I have submitted and prayed and watched the Lord work He certainly has done a better job. Also I don’t end up being a nagging wife:) I think I will submissively show my husband your blog entry, Carmon. It is pretty good.
September 2nd, 2004 at 10:00 am
Kendra…I DO NOT recommend voting against your husband. If your conscience bothers you about how he wants to vote, submissively and sweetly ask him if you can abstain from voting. I firmly believe that it is wrong for a wife to ever vote differently from her husband as it would be denying his position as covenant head in your family.
September 2nd, 2004 at 11:32 am
In 2000 I voted for G.W. Bush because I held the same fears everyone has listed. (People voting for the Dem. ticket do so for the same reasons.) That fear does not come from the Lord, and thankfully He has removed it from my life. (as only He can) I will be voting for Michael Peroutka without any reservations.
The Bible actually does not say "God gave the Land to the Jewish People." What it does say is that God promised the Land to "Abraham’s seed (descendants)"
Both the Old & the New Testaments affirm that Abraham’s promise is based on faith and obedience and not merely on fleshly descent. Some Pharisees told Jesus, "Abraham is our father." Jesus replied to them, "If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the things Abraham did." (John 8:39) Paul puts it in a beautiful way: "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the Promise." (Gal.3:29) Palestinian Arab Christians are also Abraham’s seed! The Promise of the Land has become the Promise of the World. There is a message of hope, life, love and Good News for the Jews and the Arabs. (and Americans) Jesus did not die to redeem a land. He died to redeem His people.
September 2nd, 2004 at 11:55 am
I voted for Howie Phillips when he was the Constitution Party’s Presidential Candidate. That was a while back. This time I will vote for Peroutka. However, I am curious about his Catholic upbringing though and whether he has full membership in the Protestant church he attends.
In the long run, I think local issues/candidates are more important and we are afforded the opportunity to vote more often for them, ie exercise more control in the day to day operations of civil government.
September 2nd, 2004 at 12:39 pm
This has been a wonderful disscussion. I am new to this (not being a believer but filtering EVERYTHING through God’s word) and I am with Marysue and Ruthanne (hello, by the way! I was on MOMYS,nice to bump into you!). It comes down to does my choice bring honor to God? Often, so very often, God’s version of success is not our version. Often it is not about winning the huge battle we think we are fighting but about winning our hearts and taking every thought captive to Him. Does that make sense to you? We must fight, we must stand against this tide of evil but we must remember God used a a youth, five smooth stones and a sling to slay a giant. Keep your eternal perspective fellow comrades.Let us think in terms of what God can do (as David did) and not fall into thinking what is humanly possible (as Saul did)!
September 2nd, 2004 at 12:52 pm
Shane, your belief is common among evangelical Christians today, which says that Israel = Jewish nation. The Bible, however, does not support this concept. The Bible repeatedly calls Israel His chosen people, but nowhere does it call the _Jews_ His chosen people and leaves it at that.
Shane, _we_ are Israel. All believers are Israel. Jews, Gentiles, no matter what, they are Israel. We are grafted onto that seed, and we can claim Abraham as our spiritual father just as much as a believing Jew can.
Read Romans 9-11. Consider, especially, 9:6-7 - "… For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’"
The Jews are not Israel. _Israel_ is Israel, and we, believing Gentiles, are Israel just as much as believing Jews.
September 2nd, 2004 at 1:47 pm
Sure… and Iraqi’s and the Folks in China. (AND The Leaders both former and present) are Americans right?
September 2nd, 2004 at 2:01 pm
I think this conversation has gotten a bit off track with the discussion about Israel. Nickey, Carmen, Kyle and I have all given some good biblical reasons why the support of the federal government for Israel is not necessary or even just. Kyle pointed out Romans 9 and Carmen Galatians 3 to show you that the true Israel, according to God, is those who belong to Him through faith in Christ. Your response to Kyle shows that you ignored those verses. There is no middle ground for Jews…they are either covenant keepers (Christians) or covenant breakers (reprobates). There is only one way to heaven…faith in our Savior Jesus Christ.
This rabbit trail is now closed.
September 2nd, 2004 at 5:38 pm
I’m fairly new here and have a question I’ve been wrestling with for some time-do you think it is biblical for a woman to vote? I’d rather stay out of politics but have voted in the past because I’ve thought it’s my duty as am American. To be honest, though, now that I think about it, I’ve managed to always "get out of" jury duty because of pregnancy or nursing. I kind of went out of my way to not have to do it.
I can’t help but feel that women should be at home while our husbands are "at the gates" so to speak.
What do you all think?
September 2nd, 2004 at 6:25 pm
Joanna, I would agree with you that men should be our political leaders. However with our system in America set up the way it is now I think we need to do as our husbands desire us to. Mine wants me to vote so I will.
I think the way our voting system was orignally set up was a good one - this meant heads of households voted for those in their home. Contrary to popular feminazi belief women were allowed to vote under this system if they were the heads of their household - meaning they had no husband or father and they owned land.
September 2nd, 2004 at 7:24 pm
Just wanted to add something I wish I has said earlier. My 90 year-old aunt, and a widow of 34 years, is a lifelong diehard Democrat . She never has missed an election, and "Bill Clinton is the greatest president this country has ever had."
This Nov. she will be leaning heavily on her walker as she brings a personal helper to a Midwestern polling place. She is almost totally blind because of macular degeneration and wants to make sure her vote is counted. Her vote for……..Michael Peroutka.
September 2nd, 2004 at 8:51 pm
I know it’s annoying when I do this, but I really do tend to get confoozled by folks with the same or similar names. Carmen-with-an-E, would you mind posting as "Carmen from Omaha (or wherever you’re actually from)" or some other distinguishing title (maybe even "Carmen-with-an-E"!) so I won’t think Carmon-with-an-O wrote stuff you wrote? This bear of very little brain would be beholden.
September 2nd, 2004 at 9:51 pm
Joanna, in our family my husband and I both vote, though I would never vote differently than he does as he is the covenant head of our family, and it would be a denial of that for me to cancel his vote. We carefully discuss the ballot before election day and mark the sample ballot to make sure we know how we will be voting. In our church, only heads of households vote and we believe that is as it should be. Jennie Chancey wrote an extensive article discussing the history of voting and presented a good argument against women who are not heads of households voting, instead allowing their husbands to represent their families with their votes. She makes a good point that we allow our congressional representatives to vote for us in our representative republic, and the same principle applies to our households.
You need to discuss it with your covenant head and be willing to honor his decision about this controversial issue ;-).
September 3rd, 2004 at 5:44 am
For consistency sake, Mrs. Jennie Chancey should be Mrs. *Male Name* Chancey.
September 3rd, 2004 at 6:40 am
Valerie, Good suggestion! Doesn’t take much to confoozle me either
Although Carmon’s brilliant writing style would never be mistaken for mine, and to make sure everyone pays full attention to her words filled with wisdom and common sense, I will be……"Booklover". ( I was worried when I found this website that regular posters might think I was crowding out Carmon. Thanks for letting me be here and stick in my two cents. Appreciate it! )
September 3rd, 2004 at 8:34 am
Dear Carmon,
I wouldn’t vote against my husband. Those are just the "options" I have right now. I guess the options truly are: God will change my husband’s mind, vote for Bush or not vote at all. At least, we will both vote against (oh my!) yet another school levy. Actually, we found out that I am not on our home loan. I guess I am not really a property owner so should I be voting anyway? That was a joke. I have thought for a while that only property owners should vote (especially on those things that use our property taxes) before I found out that historically that was the case.
September 3rd, 2004 at 8:36 am
Down another rabbit hole - All this name talk… no one normally knows how to spell my name but I never have a problem with it online and thus far have never been mixed up with any other person holding the same name as I. Blame it on my father - he decided to spell my name in what is normally the masculine use. The best advantage of online use of my name is that I never have to hear the nauseating repeats of the Mickey Mouse club song. : )
September 8th, 2004 at 4:47 pm
Heh. I just posted on this same subject. Seems we have a similar opinion.
Theognome