Of McCain, Romney and Alternatives
February 7, 2008 by Paul Webster
Filed under Christianity, Election '08, Politics, Religion
Last week I was speaking to a friend of mine about the Republican Primary. She is a thoughtful Christian from Georgia and she told me that she could not vote for a Mormon and was voting for John McCain.Now when both of us were working in the House of Representatives, we had few good things to say about the gentleman from Arizona. In fact, he often thwarted many of a conservative legislative initiative and could always be counted on to defect the Republican Caucus and side w/ the Ds. The fact that he initiated the regulation of free political speech, contrary to the first amendment, and an amnesty bill that the country had to rise up and kill, demonstrate that John McCain is a fair weather Republican at best.
I knew, therefore, that my friend’s decision to support McCain could hardly be due to his stellar qualities and more with her concerns with Romney. “I can’t bring myself to vote for a Mormon,” she said.
She explained that having Romney as the Chief Executive would serve to legitimize a deceptive, pagan alternative to Christianity. It would provide a platform for Mormonism, install Mormon chaplains and prayers in the Congress and military, and give followers of Joseph Smith unprecedented access to the White House. The biggest problem would be that it would make Christians who care about defending the particulars of the Faith ( like Who is Jesus?, Why is his death on the cross significant? and How grace through faith works?) seem like nit-picking nay sayers. (Gosh, why do the Christians have to be hatin’ on everyone who isn’t just like them?)
This angle has some merit. Who wants to put a self-identified pagan into the highest office in the land? Furthermore, even when you want to put a righteous man in office, it doesn’t always pan out. Just think of those long lines of rigteous, Baal embracing kings in the OT.
But then I thought this argument only works when the alternative to the pagan, is a believer. It really doesn’t mean much when the choice for the White House is a pagan, a pagan, a pagan, and a one-time Muslim. In other words, if our litmus test is going to be faith, then show me the real deal or don’t bother.
What this really points up is that, in politics, you rarely choose against the ideal. Instead, you choose against the other candidates with all their short comings, various priorities, and miss-steps. The front-runner doesn’t have to be all that, they just have to be a little better than the competition.
Related posts (automatically generated)
CherylEmery on 
Ontario Emperor on 
Randy Thomas on 
Ryan on 
Yeah, That Thing Called Life : ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected on 
amy lee on 
Cindy Smith on 
SusanH on 
Pagan? Hmmmm… could you define that in this context. I called a friend a “pagan” once in jest because he said something off-color.
In your list of four “pagans” is that comprised of McCain, Romney, Obama and Clinton without considering Huckabee a contender? I don’t want to get stuck on that but that was the only part of your post I wasn’t clear on.
The rest I completely understand to be true. What I don’t understand is why people are downright hostile over not getting the “perfect” candidate (in their own estimation)? In all honesty, I don’t trust McCain and I worry that we will elect him only to find him actively work against our issues after Inauguration.
It’s happened before.
Recently I was meditating on the differences between destruct and deconstruct. I still am but in this situation I know that destruction means destroyed. I believe Clinton and Obama would destroy. I am afraid that McCain will dismantle conservatism piece by piece. It could be put back together with care in the future. But for the time being, whether very important issues are “destroyed” or “deconstructed” either way they are not working, not effective or relevant to accomplishing what we consider the good of all.
Anyway, I am thinking out loud here. Because I know McCain will do whatever he can to keep us safe in the war and that he is so strongly pro-life … I won’t hesitate to vote for him over the Democrat ticket. At the same time, I have no doubt the next four years is going to get downright nasty politically and culturally.
Thanks for posting Paul.
Who is the one-time Muslim?
Barack Hussien Obama was educated in a Wahabi school in Indonesia from ages 6 to 10. His grandmother is a radical Muslim and his grandfather is a marginal Muslim.
Huckabee never had a chance to win the nomination. I am referring to Romney, McCain, Clinton and Obama.
People make a big deal about a candidate’s religious background. I think that is important. But I don’t like splitting hairs about their Christianity. If someone is a believer than there is no compromise. If they are not, well, their fruits will demonstrate what kind of tree they are.
I don’t care where they go to church, I care in who they place their faith.
Barack has been pretty open about being a Christian and has been campaigning with several Pastors. From what I’ve read, he’s been very active in his church for several years. I think calling him a one-time Muslim (implying he is not a believer, which is what you drew the connection from) is unfair. I’m also wondering why you used his full name in your comment.
There are a lot of believers out there that weren’t always ones, and to define them by a faith they had at 10 years old or a faith that their grandparents had really isn’t giving their current faith any credit.
Brady,
You are right about me implying that he is not a Christian. I don’t know his heart and that may have been a bit harsh. I used his full name to point out that, in my view, no one with that name - particularly the middle name - can be elected President of the United States.
Brady, I heard conflicting stories but wasn’t Obama’s dad a Muslim? I think the point Paul was making was more about people getting uptight about religious rumors and possible ties. and how that isn’t what should be necessarily focused on.
Paul of course can explain himself. But I didn’t see him attacking Barack, I saw him making the case that religion is but only one of many concerns a person should take into account when considering a candidate.
Well, Paul posted his reason before I finished composing my opinion :). I love having multiple authors
Paul, fair enough. Thanks for the response…