How Would Jesus Vote?
Saturday, October 28, 2006 at 11:41PM Bottom Line Up Front: Christianity is diametrically opposed to voting with the Democratic Party platform.
Catholic Bishops throughout America are urging Catholics to vote in the upcoming mid-term elections.
Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis, Missouri:
“Missouri is facing an unimaginably severe moral crisis" (as it prepares to vote on an initiative that could make embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning a constitutional right.)
"The passage of Amendment 2 would be a moral disaster for our state and the nation. If Amendment 2 succeeds in the state of Missouri, which has the reputation of being pro-life, then the proponents of human cloning and the destruction of embryonic human life will surely be emboldened to undertake the same deadly initiative in other states of our union."
Twelve Illinois bishops wrote in a joint letter:
"Catholics should always vote for that person most committed to being a public servant dedicated to the common good. This being said, it should be noted that any candidate who supports a public policy where part of humanity (such as the preborn, the elderly, the handicapped or the sick) is excluded from the protection of law and treated as if they were nonpersons is gravely deficient in his or her view of the requirements of a just society."
Three Colorado bishops wrote:
"Anything less than a state constitutional amendment defending marriage this year will enable state judges and legislators to potentially redefine marriage -- even against the will of the people."
Bishop John W. Yanta of Amarillo, Texas:
"How would Jesus vote? Catholics must participate in political life and bring to bear upon it -- by their voice and their vote -- what they have learned about human nature, human dignity and God's will for human beings from his self-revelation. The righteous, true Christians and faithful Catholics vote their faith as Jesus expects."
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix:
"There are cases where Catholics in public life serve with great courage and distinction. There are others, sadly, who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin where the risk of scandal is great."
"If a politician is actively supporting and furthering the culture of death, he is not only causing scandal; he is sinning. When this occurs, then this politician cannot receive holy Communion without previously making a good confession."
Bishop Richard J. Malone of Portland, Maine:
"Catholics, like all other citizens, are bound by duty and responsibility to cast their vote. Voting is a right and responsibility we cannot forgo, even when confronted with moral dilemmas. The power of a single vote can be enormous and no vote should ever be cast without regard for its consequence and implications."
Embryonic stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage…Christianity condemns all these. The question is, how will you vote?
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/746372
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (48)
I see the dichotomy of our two main political parties as this:
The Democratic Party seeks to raise taxes and make the federal government accountable and, ultimately responsible for our well being,
The Republican Party seeks to lower taxes and limit government thus making us responsible for our own actions and behavior, and ultimately resposible for our well being.
Personal accountability of one's behavior is a Christian principle that does not bode well with those who would choose to place blame on the Government for their woes.
I see great difficulty in holding to the ideology of the Democratic Party while holding on to Christian values. One either chooses to be accountable for one's behavior, or will attempt to place blame on someone else.
To quote the Apostle Paul from 1 Cor. 13:11, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me."
I believe it is time for the Democratic Party to Grow Up.
It might not be a bad idea to supplement this post with statements from protestant leaders as well.
Thought you might be interested in this deathocrats response to your post: http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/Pics/ChickenLittleTheocracy.png
The Democrats are promising an honest government, better economic prosperity, and affordable heath care.
They have proven neither.
My solution is not voting for any incumbents reguardless of party. America needs a new direction and it isn't with any elected official in Congress today.
The problem is the elected officals we elected as Americans are not holding their end of the deal. They are out of touch with their people they represent and are too devoted to the party they represent.
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html
I really couldn't agree more with those bishops. On the other hand, the Republicans have largely been a disappointment in effecting meaningful policy. I sometimes wonder if a Republican's worst nightmare would be Roe v. Wade getting overturned coupled with having secure borders. What, then, could they champion and promise to the people to win elections? The same holds true for Democrats. If health care were completely socialized and somehow worked, they'd be in the same position.
Someone wrote we should vote for any party except Democrats and Republicans. On the one hand, I agree, but on the other hand I can't help but think that I simply can't vote for pro-abortion party such as the Libertarians or the Greens. I will say that Congress split between those two parties would actually be having *real* a debate though.
I don't know who to support in this election that honestly gives a you-know-what about me or my vote. There's no way I'll ever vote Democrat but voting for anyone else would seem ineffectual at best.
Silke,
Democrats and liberals don't have a monopoly those issues. Please don't act like they do. It insults my intelligence.
"Amy, is Jesus is opposed to honest government, real security, energy independence, economic prosperity, affordable health care, retirement security, protecting our environment, civil rights & justice and election reform?"
Not at all. He simply wouldn't agree with the Democrats way of accomplishing those things. Especially social security. Jesus isn't real hip on telling people they are too stupid to handle their own money.
I think Jesus would likely absent Himself from human politics. To endorse one party or another by giving them His vote might be construed, by some, as a theological and moral blank check. The mother of all mandates. Jesus had golden opportunities to speak against the Roman Empire, but He advised us to pay our taxes and be loyal to our governing authorities. Paul later reaffirmed that same message. In fact, Paul's instructions on the matter carry considerable weight considering he and Christians everywhere were being persecuted and murdered left and right by Nero.
You are, of course, free to disagree.
I suppose it depends on what the motivation is for these ends and the means employed to acheive them. Even more fundamental is this: in themselves those terms are very ambiguous.
For some economic security would include "the right" to abortion. The same holds true for civil rights. Is the need for retirement security motivated in part by the fact that americans are killing the children they were once dependent on in their golden years? Isn't the wholesale slaughter of children these last 30 plus years in itself a major contributing factor in the current social security crisis which makes the need for retirement security an issue today?
I've never liked the question "what would Jesus do?" Better questions would be 1. what would Jesus say about what I'm doing? 2. What would he say about why am I doing it? 3. What would he say about how I'm doing it.
All of the above are considered sins in the Jewish religion as well.But I think you missed the biggest sin of all. The democratic plan for unconditional withdrawal from Iraq is nothing shirt of mass suicide.
I don’t recall ever saying they did, Trent.
If it were such an agenda for Republicans Roe v. Wade would have been overturned.
"of all"?
That's strange. I'm a registered republican and I was not surveyed by this group and neither were my republican friends. That is a fraud statement IMO.
Its called a popoulation sample, not an entire population. The whole point of statistics............
I think I have too. Because Jesus wasn't allowed a vote on those issues in question with the Roman government. Jesus cares very deeply about human politics, as they have direct effect on the lives of humanity.
"Calpatriot, Unrelated, but you sure know how statistics work don't you!
Its called a popoulation sample, not an entire population. The whole point of statistic"
Making it totally irrelevant.
"Look at this site, called www.republicansforchoice.com. Almost 70% of all registered Republicans are pro-choice.
If it were such an agenda for Republicans Roe v. Wade would have been overturned."
Indy, that isn't possible. The majority of Republican politicians, Senators, Congressmen or Presidents, are pro-life. Pro-life is a huge part of our platform. I can garauntee that "pro-choice" Republicans are NOT voting in pro-life candidates. Abortion is one of the most divisive issues of all times. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers simply do not cross-breed in elections.
If you haven't realized it by now, overturning Roe V. Wade IS a Republican agenda. Why do you think we take the Supreme Court nominees so seriously?
Also, for future reference, CHECK THE SOURCE. A Pro-Choice Republican website is not the place to find out what the Republican platform is on abortion, particularly when it contradicts the official party platform.
Here is the GOP official platform for 2004, when we had our last national convention (does this sound anything like what Republicans for choice is saying? This is the OFFICIAL party platform):
http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf
Promoting a Culture of Life
As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution
and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that
right against those who perform abortions.
We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges
who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of
support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be
punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion.
We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who
have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption
services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption. We join the President in supporting crisis pregnancy programs and parental notification laws. And we applaud President Bush for allowing states to extend health care coverage to unborn children.
We praise the President for his bold leadership in defense of life. We praise him for signing the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive – including an infant who survives an abortion procedure – is considered a person under federal law.
We praise Republicans in Congress for passing, with strong bipartisan support, a ban on the inhumane procedure known as partial birth abortion. And we applaud President Bush for signing legislation outlawing partial birth abortion and for vigorously
defending it in the courts.
In signing the partial birth abortion ban, President Bush reminded us that “the most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent. Every person, however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world.” We affirm the inherent dignity and worth of all people. We oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment because of disability, age, or infirmity, just as we oppose euthanasia and
assisted suicide, which especially endanger the poor and those on the margins of society.
We support President Bush’s decision to restore the Drug Enforcement Administration’s policy that controlled substances shall not be used for assisted suicide. We applaud Congressional Republicans for their leadership against those abuses and their pioneering
legislation to focus research and treatment resources on the alleviation of pain and the care of terminally ill patients.
Point well made and taken.
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html
Silke! Come on! Jesus is in favor of all those, but unfortunately Democrats are unable (or unwilling) to either make it happen or tell how they would make it happen. "We will protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies. We believe in a strong national defense that is both tough and smart, recognizing that homeland security begins with hometown security." is NOT real security!
You might be interested to know that Jesus is more concerned about the morality of an issue than the socialology of an issue. He told Judas, who scolded him for allowing a woman to waste expensive perfume on him instead of selling it and giving the proceeds to the poor, "The poor you will have with you always. You will not always have me." Obedience to the morality and will of God is more important than having social programs that run contrary to who HE is.
Dems have yet to articulate a plan on these issues. "We'd do better" is not a plan.
I found the article and Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics stated that the poll didn’t use a good SRS. He quite specifically said the question was “loaded”, in which is. Gallop would never pose a questing like that.
Here let him say in his own words that this survey is bunk; this is in the same article you got your quote from,
"They picked the strongest possible statement for the pro-choice side," Sabato said. "It certainly is a misrepresentation of where America stands on abortion."
Anyway I thought it was so, that is why I called it the way I did.
Nice job.
http://www.republicansforchoice.com/mainstreamrepublicans.htm
Arlen Spector (R-PA) Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI) and former Governor of Pennsylvania and former director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge.
I agree with you Amy, but you stated this at the beginning of your post, “How Would Jesus Vote? Bottom Line Up Front: Christianity is diametrically opposed to voting with the Democratic Party platform.”
Since you agree that Jesus (and Christianity) is in favor of all the things I listed earlier, shouldn’t you revise your bottom line up front?
By the way, I have family in PA. Great state.
Here's a list off the top of my head of pro-life Republicans:
Jim Talent
Rick Santorum
Elizabeth Dole
Jim Frist
George Allen
Trent Lott
Llamar Alexander
Lindsey Graham
Tom Coburn
Kay Bailey Hutchinson
Mitch McConnell
Haley Barbour
Jeb Bush
George W. Bush
(most of the Bush cabinet)
Keep in mind that there are literally hundreds of elected officials at the federal level (Governors, Senators and Congressmen) who are pro-life. I could name a small handful of Democratic pro-lifers, but that is by no means their party platform. Then there are hundreds more state senators and congressmen.
You didn't comment on the offical party platform I listed several entries up. I think that's pretty clear.
Mavic: I see everyone else already rammed your ludicrous statements down your throat so I guess I don't have to bother. Let me just say using a sample population census to determine the pulse of the entire Republican party is faulty at the very least.
I also agree with you, that if these cited polls were to have some validity, they should infact turn over raw data, to those that wish to scrutinize it. This applies to data that shows in favor of either side of any issue. I have seen many a time, where the same people in this blog that stand head over heal against this particular "poll" will stand up and praise some other given poll, for obvious reasons. Consistency is best achieved if people use objective reasoning, as apposed to blind faith based "reasoning".
By the way. I did not cite any quotes from this poll, I was addressing the general nature of statistical analysis, thats all.
Tim, thats good, you should it leave to the adults to discuss these issues
They are suppost to support small government as well. This is why I left both parties. America can do better.
If you were discussing the same issue as the rest of the adults that might be relevant. Since you weren't...
"The parties vote on their platform, it isn't a wishlist."
I wish Bush and the GOP would get around to doing that instead of signing every liberal piece of legislation that hits his desk. Sometimes I wonder why the Dems even hate him.
Caesar vs. God -- material vs. spiritual
I think you have these things hopelessly confused. Or am I wrong?
So, if Jesus were a citizen of the US he wouldn't be a good one? Or do good citizens not vote? Isn't voting a rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesars? Wasn't Jesus born in Bethlehem because his "righteous" adoptive father (Mt 1:19) obeyed an edict by a Roman Governor (Lk 2:1-6)? Wasn't the Scripture fulfilled thru this act (Micah 5:1; Matt 2:6)? Didn't Saint Paul excercise his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25) by appealing to the imperial court and Caesar himslef (Acts 25:11-12)?
by doing good in our relations to the state we are rendering to God the things that are God's Rom 13:1-7). If Jesus could say pay taxes to Caesar then he certainly wouldn't condemn voting, would he? You ask if you have things hopelessly confused. You do. Your equating a conflict between material and spiritual is one of the perennial heresies. We live our lives in the material world and how we do that has a bearing on our spiritual life (not to mention our final end). The material world, like the authority of government, comes from God and cannot be ignored. It exists for our benefit. Unfortunately, since the fall, it also exists as a temptation. Government, citizenship, money, loved ones, exist for our benefit, but we can abuse them.
I mean really, this blog entry must be a sattirical joke? If anything, it shows the irrelevence of taking an important historical figure of a few milleniums ago, and placing him in a modern context. A context that doesn't have a shade of resemblance to the period of his existance. I am surprised no one has alluded that Jesus would be sporting an m-16 and masked as an American soldier. Shuccks.
Don't turn your ignorance into my fantasy. When I spoke about doing good in our relations to the state I was referring to acting in accordance with the objective moral order, not in accordance with the US in itself. My faith teaches me that the authority of the state comes from God (as does all authority) and that, to the extent that the excercise of that authority is moral then I am to be subject to it. Where it is immoral (i.e. abused) I am to do what I can to correct it which, here in America, would include excercising my right to vote, were I old enough.
As far as Jesus sporting an m-16, I recall on one occassion he praised the faith of a Roman centurion (Mt 8:5-13) but never told this soldier of an occupying power to give up his military career. His precursor, John the Baptist, likewise told soldiers to act morally, but he also never told them to give up their profession, in fact, he told them to be content with their wages (Lk 3:13-14).
You talk about modern context, but how different morally is our time from that of Jesus'? Armies are still warring. Despots still ruling. Women still killing their babies in the womb. Divorce is rampant once again. Homosexual marriage is being sought after again, as it was in his day. Governments are still demanding taxes to support programs both good and evil. Do I really need to go on with the litany? The context is still the same because the context is fallen humanity and THAT IS WHAT MAKE JESUS RELEVANT STILL.
What's the difference really between a battle axe and an m-16? Both are used by men. Both can be used by the state for protection. Both can be used by the state for evil purposes. The fact that in our "modern context" we are able to kill people with greater effectiveness and ease IS WHAT MAKE JESUS RELEVANT TODAY. Since the authority of the state comes from God we have a duty to protect it from those enemies who would destroy it from without and from the pink-pantied Kevorkians within who would assist its suicide.
While this is certainly not the first (nor, regrettably, the last) time I have heard someone toss out this kind of reasoning, it never fails to astound me.
For discussion purposes, let’s accept the argument from the true believers that incidents like the Foley scandal, the Cunningham scandal, the Ney scandal, etc., are not indicative of a pervasive climate of corruption existing within the Republican party, but merely a case of a few bad apples who, drunk with political power and tempted by forbidden financial fruit, fell off the Virtue wagon with a publicly-humiliating thud.
Let’s also, for the sake of discussion, accept the fact that the biggest hurdle for many voters who consider themselves to be religious Christians in supporting Democrats is, was, and seemingly always will be the issue of pro-choice versus anti-choice vis a vis abortion, and its attendant issues of access to birth control, sex education, and the like.
On this single topic, the Christian Right have been traditionally willing to throw the Baby Jesus out with the bath water. Upon hearing the words “right to choose”, they invariably stick their fingers in their ears in order to shut out everything else the Democratic party has to say. That is an unfortunate fact, but a fact nonetheless.
So having put aside those two issues for the moment, we are left with the obvious question: What else is it that the current crop of elected Republicans stand for, and have crafted into policy, that is in keeping with values of religious conservatives – or, for that matter, any people of faith?
The disconnect between what is morally just and the actions of the elected Republicans in control of our government for the past few years should be glaringly obvious. Where is the morality in a war that has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis? Where is the adherence to Christian teaching in abandoning social programs that assist the hungry, the sick and the homeless? How does one equate moral rectitude with policies that have enriched and empowered the wealthy, while plunging the hard-working middle class into debt? Who can honestly condone the use of torture and consider it to be in keeping with anything remotely resembling Christian values?
“As you do to the least among you, so you do unto me.” And what has been done to the least among us by the Republicans currently in office is not, I would humbly suggest, what Jesus would consider to be a monumental display of moral values – not by a long shot.
On the other hand, the Democrats have traditionally championed strong social safety-nets for those “least among us”, as well as other moral concepts the GOP have abandoned – things like obeying the law of the land, and rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, without simply handing everything over to Caesar without regard for God’s share of the action, such as stewardship of the planet, and a helping hand extended to our fellow man in His name.
What Mr. Prager, and people who spout the same rhetoric, seemingly fail to recognize is the fact that as we head into the mid-term elections, the poll numbers have shown a distinct Democratic lead over the party that has proven, beyond any doubt, to have a total inability to walk the walk despite an annoying penchant to talk the talk at every available opportunity.
While it may come as a shock to the Dennis Pragers of the world, a lot of those people who are planning to vote Democratic next month are good Christians – as well as good Jews, good Muslims, good Buddhists, and others of moral fiber who have finally had their fill of the GOP slogan-in-practice, “Come for the Sermon – Stay for the Hypocrisy”.
There has been much discussion of late about how Democrats should strike while the political iron is hot, and reach out to the Fundamentalists in an effort to secure their loyalty and their future votes.
I, for one, dismiss this idea out-of-hand. It is not for the party that has proven itself to be more in keeping with the tenets of Christianity to prove itself worthy; it is for those espoused followers of the teachings of Jesus to prove the strength of their own convictions by supporting what is right, what is just, what is morally responsible.
If the religious conservatives of whom Mr. Prager speaks find the Republicans – the party who have placed the Power of the Almighty Dollar over the Power of the Almighty God – to be the party that shares their values, so be it. But perhaps it is time for the so-called Religious Right not to assess the moral values of the two political parties, but their own commitment to the values they allegedly hold so dear.
In the current political atmosphere, where the topic of morality is about to play a key role in the voting choice of millions of Americans, it is not fitting for people of faith who cling to Republican ideals to ask why God has forsaken them and their party. It is, I would humbly submit, more appropriate for God to ask why He has been abandoned by those who claim to be His staunchest supporters.
I should address your points -- all are examples of people living in the world. None are moral statements. My appealing to a Roman court, this is not making citizenry in the state a religious act (you will note that Jesus was not a Roman citizen -- see "Jesus, not Paul"), by showing up for a census Joseph is not condoning gladiator contests.
It is clear that there was something wrong with the Roman state, or why would Jesus come to earth? What is to be redeemed if the state is the hand of God on earth. By conflating these two -- you do the most henous sacreligous act. To suggest that Christianity is compatable with the immoral state is to rob Christ of everything sacred.
None of your examples add anything to your argument short of making you look like an apologist for the state. I am not sure that is a nobel pursuit. That is something that you must decide in your own conscience.
If Roman Gladitors, by your logic, are holy -- I now understand how you think the soldiers in Iraq are nobel.
Consider these versus to contradict your interpretation of Pilate:
Mat 27:13 Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?
Mat 27:14 And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.
Mar 15:2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest [it].
Mar 15:3 And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing.
Mar 15:4 And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee.
Mar 15:5 But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.
Luk 23:8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long [season], because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.
Luk 23:9 Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.
Luk 23:10 And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.
Luk 23:11 And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked [him], and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.
(note the irony)
Jhn 18:31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
Jhn 18:32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.
Jhn 18:33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
Jhn 18:34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
Jhn 18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
Jhn 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Jhn 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Jhn 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault [at all].
Jhn 19:9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.
Jhn 19:10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
Jhn 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
Jhn 19:12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
---I hope I am not alone in getting a different impression of the role of Jesus' death than the one put forward by the apologists for the state, but who knows, I started with that opinion.
Assuming you're talking to me, I'm not silent because I have no answer, just no time.
:)
On a different note, bible interpretations will always vary. The bible, is first and foremost, written literature; thus, it is meant to be read and interpreted as best fits the reader. Yet I tend to agree with Irony.
My Opinion,
Politically Correct
Both objectively and rationally there are reasons to think about this problem, but you are contradicting yourself by saying that it is unimportant and then stating your opinion none-the-less.
I'm a little uncertain what your argument is, considering that the majority of the article is a compilation of other people's ideas.
That said, I'll try to take it at face value. I do have to ask:
Considering the huge discrepancies within the Christian religion and the various denominations, is it not possible that a Christian could vote for the Democrats and NOT betray the tenets of his or her faith? And, considering the number of times in which Jesus of Nazareth instructed his disciples not to judge, not to condemn, and to love one's neighbour, even if one thinks they are wrong... isn't it a bit odd to then say "He's telling me to vote this way?"