﻿ 2012 Election
West Side Church of Christ A Editorials Articles
By Many or By Few
Where I Stand
The New Testament (2)
Be Not Yoked The New Testament (3) Holy Spirit Baptism A Criticism of Hume

     The Christian in America has certain privileges and blessings from the hand of God that Christians in many other countries and in other times may never have legally enjoyed.  According to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, we are guaranteed freedom in this country to assemble as Christians without the fear of harm or molestation.  Likewise, we are free to speak out on issues that are important to us as Christians.  We are free to publish papers like this one without being harassed and petition the government for a redress of grievances.  And we are free to worship and serve our Lord as He prescribes in His word without government or other  interference.  

     That freedom was obtained because men believed that our rights come, not from men or from governments but, directly to each one of us from God, the Creator.  Echoing the teaching of the Bible, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” and “that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  The blessing of this freedom is not a thing to be taken lightly and it is worth defending.

     Within just days the United States will face a monumental election in which Christians will be free to exercise the right to vote.  It is an extremely important election because it will determine the direction this country will take over the next few years.  It is a choice between two paths: one in which our freedoms will be largely maintained and the Judeao-Christian values upon which this country was founded protected and the other in which our freedoms will be significantly curtailed and a value system imposed on citizens that does not resemble what we have known all our lives as American Christians.  Our country is reaching a moral and cultural tipping point beyond which there can be no return.   

     Everything that a Christian does, every view he holds, every cause he supports, must be in harmony with God’s revealed truth (Col. 3:17).  When a Christian exercises his right to vote, he must be careful that he chooses the candidate whose views most closely adhere to a Biblical worldview.  The following facts should be seriously considered when casting a vote this November.

    First, the current administration and the party it represents supports the killing of babies.  The Democrat party platform states: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”1  The Bible clearly teaches that abortion, the killing of innocent life, is sinful (e.g., Deut. 19:10,13; Ps. 106:38).  The Democrat Party Platform, on the other hand, takes the view that not only should abortions be legal but should also be paid for by the taxpayer, including Christians.  If there were nothing else to consider, this alone should convince the faithful Christian that a vote for those who support the Democrat Platform is against the will of God.

      In contrast, the Republican Party Platform states:


     Furthermore, while a state senator, Obama voted four times against a bill in the Illinois legislature that required medical attention be given to babies born alive after induced labor, late-term abortions.  Many of these infants were routinely found to live after this procedure but were left to die without any consideration of treatment.  The Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) required that medical attention be given to these children.  In 2001, Obama “was the only state senator to speak on the floor against the bill.  He spoke against it again in 2002, and in 2003 led the committee he chaired (Health and Human Services) in killing it.  BAIPA finally passed in 2005 after Obama left for the U.S. Senate.”3  Even though he said he would have voted for the bill if it had contained a clause which would have kept it from conflicting with Roe v. Wade, he led the charge against a bill that had the very language for which he said he would have voted.4

     Second, the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is sinful (Lev. 18:22-24; 20:13-16; Rom. 1:24-28, 32; I Cor. 6:9-11; I Tim. 1:8-11).  Furthermore, marriage is a divinely instituted sacred union between a man and a woman (Gen. 2:18-25; Matt. 19:1-19) and all sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful (Heb. 13:4).

     Yet on May 31, 2011, President Obama issued a Presidential Proclamation that marked June 2011 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.5  In this proclamation, Obama boasted that “Since taking office, my Administration has made significant progress towards achieving equality for LGBT Americans.  Last December, I was proud to sign the repeal of the discriminatory ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ policy. With this repeal, gay and lesbian Americans will be able to serve openly in our Armed Forces for the first time in our Nation's history.”  Further, he said he continues to appoint “openly LGBT individuals to executive branch and judicial positions.”  The Democrat Platform also affirms that the word “families” includes such relationships.6

   On the other hand, while Mitt Romney refused to answer the CNN host Piers Morgan’s question “Is homosexuality a sin,”7 he has signed a pledge “sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage promising to support a federal constitutional amendment ‘defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.’”8 One of his closest advisers is Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a counter-balance to the very liberal American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  The liberal magazine Mother Jones observed that “like Sekulow, Romney believes that same-sex marriage should be illegal, and he supports amending the US Constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman.”9  Furthermore, the Republican Platform states unequivically, “We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”10

      Finally, the one economic principle that the Bible clearly teaches is that property can be privately owned.   God put man in the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it (Gen. 2:15).   From the beginning, that God-given obligation provided man with the right to eat of the herb of the field which it produced as he cultivated it (Gen. 3:18,19). Therefore, the land that one works with his own hands and mingles with his sweat can be owned by a person (Acts 5:1-4).  Owning this property gives the individual owner the right to do whatever he wants to with that property (Matt. 20:15).

      Because this private property is owned by the individual, other individuals, either singularly or collectively, do not have the right to take that property from him.  God condemns those who steal other’s property (Ex. 20:15).  Even if the thief intends to use the property he steals for the good of others, it is wrong to take someone else’s property (Rom. 3:8).  While it is true that Christians must submit to a government’s law on taxes (Matt. 22:17-22), it is also true that we have the freedom in this country to vote for those people who will change those laws into something more in line with the Biblical worldview.

     Back in 2008, when Senator Barrack Obama was first running for President of the United States, he told Joe Wurzelbacher, an out of work plumber, that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.”  This should have indicated to anyone who was listening where his heart was.  In an earlier 2001 interview on NPR, Obama expressed his disappointment that the Warren court did not address issues of “redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”11  He regretted that there “was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”12

      What Obama was advocating is a form of socialism.  Karl Marx is known for his slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” which was his way of saying that wealth should be redistributed.  The Bible knows nothing of giving to the state so that it can redistribute a persons possessions.  It is the responsibility of the individual to give to those who are in need as God has prospered him (I Cor. 16:1,2; II Cor. 9:7).  It is the individual who will stand before the judgement seat of Christ to be judged according to his own works (II Cor. 5:10,11; Rev. 20:11-15).

      There are many other issues that a Christian should consider when entering into the voting booth but there is not the space to consider them in this article.  The faithful Christian will make certain that the one for whom he votes holds positions that least conflict with the word of God.  The Christian’s influence can be profound in this election and can invite the blessings of God upon this nation.–CA


1.  2012 Democrat Party Platform, p. 52.

2.  2012 Republican Party Platform, pp. 13,14.

3.  http://www.mcclpac.org/about


4.  http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/


5.  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/31/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-mon

6.  2012 Democrat Party Platform, p. 51.

7.  http://www.christianpost.com/news/


8.  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20088274-503544.html

9.  http://www.motherjones.com/politics


10.  2012 Republican Party Platform, p. 10.

11.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?V=


12.  Ibid.

The Christian and the 2012 Election Christian Apologist
Copyright Eric L. Padgett  11-05-2012