Just When You Thought . . .

The matter of choice cuts both ways. Here is an interesting thought from Sam Holloway at Church of the Bad News. I was tipped off by my college friend Guy Rittger. And, you will be glad to know in his most recent post, Sam critiques boycotting Election 2012 – which I never had thought I was advocating but he has a point – as it must be accompanied by something more concrete and constructive. He pushed me more toward a third party candidate to be sure.

It’s a clear demonstration that millions of us are willing to allow atrocities to be visited upon others as long as our own privileges are left more or less intact. We don’t care how many foreign brown children Obama exterminates as long as the wealthier among us still has access to health care, abortions, etc. Let’s be clear– I’m not suggesting those are trivial issues. However, if you accept a situation where you have access and others don’t, then you are reducing these basic human rights to privileges. The same goes for your right to due process; if you tolerate Obama’s extrajudicial killings, then you are saying that life is a privilege that you deserve and that others do not. In addition to being morally reprehensible, this approach leaves you open to having your own privilege (to health, security, life, etc.) revoked at any time.

Image Credit

About the Author
Husband to Patty. Daddy to Kimberly and Tommie. Grandpa Doc to Cohen, Max, Fox, and Marlee. Pastor to Snow Hill Baptist Church. Graduate of Oklahoma Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Reading. Photography. Golf. Colorado. Jeeping. Friend. The views and opinions expressed here are my own and should not be construed as representing the corporate views of the church I pastor.

10 comments on “Just When You Thought . . .

  1. In a discussion with a group on whether to vote, a comment was made, “You are not voting on a religious leader. We do not have one, vote your politics.”

  2. Gwen, the person is correct. We are not voting on a religious leader. My objection to both President Obama and Governor Romney is not based on their particular religious convictions. Their politics are too much alike. Neither is “my politics.” The funny thing is, since 1979 the Religious Right has made much of a candidate’s religion/religious position. But, in the name of defeating Obama we hear many say, “we are not voting on a religious leader.” Seems a bit like a political flip-flop to me.

  3. Steve Martin says:

    We have a responsibility to do good for our neighbors, as best as we know how. That includes voting. We ought vote, but we should never tie politics to the gospel.

    Vote for the policies or people you think would do the most good for the most people. Their weird, or non religion aside.

    1. Steve,
      Thank you for commenting. I agree that when we talk about ought-ness we must include our neighbors. Doing good to our neighbors via voting seems a stretch when the material actions toward our neighbors could embrace so much more. If Christians spent as much time doing for their neighbors as they will talk about voting this election cycle, some of the issues that alarm us and alert us to action would be met by Christians acting in the world rather than hoping their candidate will get elected in order to produce the good needed for their/his/her neighbor.

      I still think that our two-party options endanger people – just different groups – and that it may be the better good to offer something more constructive while not voting.

      But, more and more, it appears I may yet cast a vote.

  4. Rob Tripp says:

    I won’t make the mistake of voting for a third party candidate as I did a decade ago…the fate of our nation is at stake. Democrat or Republican: You are choose the lesser of two evils

    1. Rob,
      Glad you weighed in. I understand the sentiment. What I know of President Obama and what is available in Governor Romney offers little distinction. Some may believe one must choose the lesser of two evils. I don’t subscribe to that line of thinking.

      The fate of the United States has always been the motivation in many past elections. Following my particular conviction locates the fate of the U.S. other than in the outcome of an election. The piece I reference applies to both parties. If our only interest is the preservation of our privileges at the expense of others only means that one day there will be no one to advocate for my privileges. That will likely be the litmus test for my vote.

  5. Rob Tripp says:

    I won’t make the mistake of voting for a third party candidate as I did two decades ago…the fate of our nation is at stake. Democrat or Republican: You are choosing the lesser of two evils. I believe that the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness guarantee you only one thing-opportunity. The incumbent has focused his efforts on reducing individual opportunities; his challenger seeks to expand them.

    1. Rob,
      Inalienable rights in their original form applied to people of privilege, not everyone. Both candidates offer policies that will privilege their constituents. That does not equate to opportunity for all.

      I will not remain an idealist come Election Day. But, neither will I ignore the glaring exclusivity both maintain. You and I will vote. If we fail to voice our concerns regardless of who wins, our votes may mean very little.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.