Sprittibee hates talking about politics, and yet she can’t seem to stop. I love talking about politics, and yet I just haven’t desired to wade into those waters. But I’ve been asked so I thought I would answer.
There is a rather popular idiom common to Western nations, but peculiarly prevalent in American politics which summarizes the way many of us on the conservative side feel about our political choices:
I will be voting for the lesser of two evils.
Meaning, of course, that we see two options available to us, neither of which we are particularly keen on.
And in this election, with a strong Christian in the running, many have responded to this frustration with a slight turning of the phrase:
If you are voting for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil.
But there I must beg to differ. The “lesser of two evils” is merely an idiom. It does not, in fact, mean that either choice is “evil” in the biblical sense of the word. It means only that they are both unpleasant. There are a number of issues I disagree with John McCain on, but I cannot call him “evil” merely because we have a different vision for the direction our country should take.
And honestly? I have as many concerns about Chuck Baldwin as I do about John McCain. He is a pastor, not a politician. That is not a bad thing, but at this point I have no idea how well he can lead a city, let alone a state or a nation. He has said a lot of things as a pastor which are good and right, but I do not know what that means when I try to apply it to politics. Perhaps with more familiarity, my discomfort would be alleviated, but I know from experience that not everyone who starts talking about “biblical principles” and “our founders’ vision” means the same thing I do when I bring up these phrases. Some of them mean something very different, and worse than anything John McCain or Barak Obama would bring to the nation.
The Volokh Conspiracy passes Baldwin off as “an enthusiastic purveyor of all manner of far-right conspiracy theories.” Baldwin has stated that on the day he is elected, “the New World Order will come crashing down.” Really? And how does he propose to do that? Conspiracy talk always pushes me away, but I have not yet been able to decipher what kind of conspiracy theorist he is. The problem is that in all of my research, most of the theories I have tracked down have their origins in very anti-semitic and often racist ideologies which began to surface in the late 1800s, with the focus shifting from the “Jews” to the “international bankers” in the 1930s. That is not to say that everyone who holds these views is anti-semitic or racist. Baldwin certainly isn’t. I only mention it to provide some context for my own biases in these discussions. That and the lizard people. I tend to lump it all together, fairly or unfairly.
But to get back on track with this, to say that the NWO is going to “come crashing down” is a rather odd rallying cry. And why I would like to know more what he means when he is talking about the NWO. To me, I cannot separate it from the notion that the Free Masons and the Illuminati control the world…in which case the election has been decided. But then to focus heavily on our nation’s founding seems odd since most of our founders were Free Masons, a factor which contributed heavily to their ability to meet “in secret” under the noses of the British.
I question his biblical interpretation when he reaches to Ezekial 22:25 as proof that there is a “conspiracy.” There was a “conspiracy” or “treason” of Israel’s prophets, but that is not proof of what most conspiracists are talking about, and fully irrelevant to what he is talking about. And he completely lost me somewhere between the moneychangers in the temple in John chapter 2 and the international bankers setting up shop in the “temple.“ What temple? Then there is his reading of the Declaration of Independence:
In the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” If that isn’t a clear reference to conspiracy, I don’t know what is.
I’m sorry, I don’t see it. I see no reference to conspiracy, only to the right and duty of people to throw off despotic governments. Ironically, the Declaration of Indpendence was a “globalist” document as our founders attempted to make their case for independence before the court of the world.
I am a devout Christian. And I do have concerns with what we often call the “secularization” of America. But words like this concern me in a world leader, regardless of his religious leanings:
After all, the United States of America was a nation established in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and for His glory. The founders of this country were emphatic about that! Therefore, the imprint and influence of the Savior are seen and felt throughout the length and breadth of this nation. And it is that same imprint and influence that the secularists are feverishly attempting to expunge . . . Therefore, if America wishes to remain a free and independent republic, if this nation truly desires future peace and prosperity, and if we genuinely aspire to remain a blessed and protected land, we must quickly throw off this foolish infatuation with multiculturalism, which is nothing more than an attempt to de- Christianize our country, and humbly return to the God of our fathers!
This is what I’m talking about when I say I don’t know how to take his positions as a pastor and apply them to politics. Is he going to “expunge” America of secular influence? Does that mean doing away with freedom of religion and liberty of conscience? Does it mean a theocracy? I may agree that we’d be better off returning to Christ, but bringing that about is not the role of government.
Then there is this, written right after 9/11, which I have read five times and I’m still not entirely sure I know what he is saying.
Second, the architects of an internationalist, New World Order must not be allowed to expunge the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in our Bill of Rights. We cannot allow our own government to do by fiat what foreign terrorists want to do by force. Americans must not surrender their liberties to any government. It is more important to be free than it is to be secure! In truth, liberty by its very nature is a risk. We must never give in to the temptation to acquiesce our God-given freedoms.
America doesn’t need the approbation of NATO or China or anyone else. We certainly don’t need the blessing of Pakistan! The United States of America is a free and independent nation and must never accept any attempt by internationalist influences to diminish our freedoms or abridge our rights.
I think he is saying we don’t need to work together with other nations or ask their permission to invade Afghanistan and go after Al Qaeda. If so, I disagree and wonder what kind of foreign policy we would have if this were followed. As noted above, we sought the approval of the world in our own fight for independence. How much more do we need to work with other nations in order to go to war abroad? And we must remember that the attack on the World Trade Center was not just an attack on the US. It was an attack on all nations, and other nations have suffered terrorist activity within their own borders as well.
Perhaps I am left voting for the lesser of three evils, but I am seeing it less that way every day. None of the candidates embody all I would have in a president, but what does that say? We are not raising up leaders to the task. Even we, who talk about limited government, are looking to central government to secure that. Something has gone awry, but it happened long before this election season.