Background on David Rockefeller’s private thinktank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/cfr_stacks_deck_with_dem_gop_presidential_candidates.htm

and

Dick Cheney (ex-director of CFR) talks to David Rockefeller (short video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg

Democrat CFR member Candidates:
Barack Obama (also, Michelle Obama is on the Board of Directors in the Chicago branch of the CFR)
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson

Republican CFR member Candidates:
Mitt Romney
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Fred Thompson
Newt Gingrich
Mike Huckabee (not a CFR member, though he named Richard Haas, president of the CFR, as his adviser on foreign policy)

One of the reasons that I began struggling with this whole concept is that, for the most part, African-American churches tend to align with Democratic candidates. I wanted to know why. The short answer is that they have a certain paradigm for the role of government which tends to be different than that of the “white churches,” by placing heavier emphasis on social justice issues.

I think I will write a follow-up article on the topic when I have the time, but the key thing I am finding is this; It is nearly impossible to create a wholistically godly government in a secular society.

It is too hard because to accomplish something there are too many people you have to alienate and too many rights you have to step on in another area. For instance, I think Republicans really fail at fulfilling the calls to societal justice laid out in the OT (I’m in Isaiah for my personal devotions right now).

So I had to find a way to articulate my understanding of the seperation between faith and governance, and then design a new criteria for my participation in government. I vote, then, not to create a religious government, but to create a societal atmosphere that allows me to proclaim the gospel to the world.

So yes, it’s fine for abortion to be an issue. But if you make that statement, then you also need to acknowledge the Christian calling to forgive enemies, to feed the sick and hungry, or to take in the stranger… which could have significant implications for war, welfare, and immigration!

The point is, you need to find a justification for your vote that acknowledges all of Scripture, not just a single issue. This paradigm is my answer to that questin.

In the meantime, I support the work that anti-abortion groups are doing, ESPECIALLY those that are reaching out to the populations that need counseling, comfort, support, adoption contacts, etc.

I flip flop on this myself; yes, the bottom-up approach will produce people who have a heart to do good, but doesn’t good also come from the top-down approach? I mean, if a president was to end abortion, wouldn’t that be a real good? What if they were to make it harder to get an abortion, wouldn’t that be a genuinely good thing?

I share your views on capital punishment and abortion, which means like you there is no presidential candidate that represents me.

I’m not sure that I want to make the case that abortion isn’t a critical issue for candidates. What I will say is that we need to be honest with ourselves about what the candidate will really do with the abortion issue once in office. More often than not, Repubs use abortion to align themselves with believers, even though they don’t actually spend much time seeking change (there are notable exceptions to this of course). For me, if I thought a presidential candidate would actually DO something about abortion, I would vote for them. But since most of them use it to woo the religious right, it probably won’t be a deciding factor in my voting next year.

As far as the specific candidates, currently I don’t think a single one of them are fit to hold office; but we’ll see what happens come Nov.

I think you may have given me some fresh insight on this perspective brother. Thanks.

“Instead, we need officials who realize that abortion is not a legal problem you can solve through changes in the law. It is a moral problem that can only be solved by bottom-up groups proclaiming a different moral perspective.”

“Augustine understood the separate roles of the judges (government officials) and the intercessors (interest groups). The one has a role of enabling a lawful and orderly society; the other has a role of advocating and healing. For Christians to have true value in whatever free society we inhabit (oppressive societies are another discussion), it is imperative that they seek wise administration and openness to advocacy from government officials, rather than dogmatic commitment to specific moral perspectives.”

I vote for guys who I think will create a healthy societal context that allows me to proclaim the gospel clearly, rather than voting for guys who agree with me for the reason of forcing everyone to live the way I think they should.

And I don’t have a problem with moral outlook being an important aspect of what people look for in a candidate, if it is used to choose between two effective administrators.

However, I simply disagree with Piper that being pro-choice should be an automatic disqualification in the Christian mind. The job of an official is to execute their role within the government effectively, and we cannot expect a secular government to operate with a Christian worldview.

Part of what clarified this in my mind was the issue of capital punishment. I have come to the conclusion that for me, capital punishment is wrong. Actually, Augustine convinced me on this point. If I was a pastor, I would advocate for life sentences rather than death sentences, so that the criminal could have opportunity to hear the gospel.

Now, I am a person who is against abortion and against capital punishment. Not many people left to vote for!

However, here is the key. I AFFIRM that God has given the state the right to execute justice according to its best understanding of how that should be done. Because I affirm this, I vote for candidates who I feel will be thoughtful and effective in creating policy that ensures a fair and orderly society.

They may feel that abortion and capital punishment are both viable options within that purpose; for instance, I believe that is Guliani’s perspective (not sure about capital punishment).

However, I should also take upon myself the role of intercessor and advocate; in other words, I proclaim to society the Christian perspective on the value of life, showing the important seperation between the city of man and the city of God. I do this through the healthy community life of the church, intercession and assistance for the social ills in the world, explanation of a consistent Christian worldview, and most importantly using all these things to point to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I think the continual blurring of lines between personal religion and public politics creates confusion; instead of the realm of the religious and the realm of the political (which to me are two very seperate things), we are seeing Christians act as though we need to try to create a Christian society with our votes, rather than with the way we display the gospel.

Ok, this is a long answer. Here’s the short one.

I vote for guys who are good at doing what public officials are supposed to do. At the same time, I live and proclaim my faith, which will remain constant NO MATTER the political situation. I think to claim that a Christian should vote for a lesser candidate because the better candidate has worldview disagreements is a wrongheaded blurring of the distinction between the two.

Thoughts?

I think that probably any of these paradigms taken on their own have the potential for grave trouble. A great administrator who holds to a bankrupt political philosophy does a fantastic job running a horrifying government. A great philosopher cannot enact his philosophy if he cannot govern. And someone who is great on a few issues might be a disaster on others (examples of this are too numerous to begin counting).

I think there has to be some overlap – for instance, you likely believe that Guiliani has a decent philosophy to back up his administrative skills. I am dubious of such so I look elsewhere for a candidate.

For instance, let’s say I have the only vote for president in the country. Should I vote for myself or for Guliani? The ISSUES voter would have to vote for themself. The ADMINISTRATIVE voter would vote for the more able administrator, Guliani.

I think we all use administrative skill as a factor, but all too small a factor. So, again, I don’t mind you guys voting differently, but you should be able to see that I’m advocating an entirely different paradigm on what politics actually MEANS.

The administrator is there to protect social ORDER, not to enforce individual VALUES. That is the key separation between the paradigm I suggest and that of most American voters.

Romney, on the other hand, represents to me the most electable, most intelligent, and most qualified candidate. He can win both republican and democratic votes, and he is a conservative on values and on fiscal policies.

In all honesty I haven’s seen a single candidate whom I like on immigration (isn’t Huckabee’s plan simply Chuck Norris ;) And I tend to think Obama is nothing more than a gas bag.

And I simply disagree about the Libertarian label. Normal voters tend to attach that label to Pat Buchanon types, and political insiders think libertarians are naive. I can’t see Paul rallying the party enough to win or even do very well in the election. When I worked in Washington D.C., the leadership of the Republican party couldn’t stand Libertarians. Often they wouldn’t even talk to them.

Again, not that Paul IS one… merely that the perception would really hurt him.

My own question (Will this candidate support a governmental framework that best supports our liberties, our ability to do good, and our ability to affect the direction in which our country moves?) seems to be be of similar form and function, yet Paul seems a viable answer to that question.

So to dismiss any support of Paul as being contra the perspective you warn against in your article seems disingenuous in that one could come to support his candidacy through means similar to those you outline as healthy.

As far as Paul having Libertarian attached to his name, I’m not sure how strong that attachment is. I think that nine months ago, there was a much stronger tie than there currently is. The average voter is an issue-voter, and as such is not concerned so much with frameworks – so won’t even put much stake on something like “Paul is a Libertarian” or “Paul ran as a Libertarian previously.” Instead, they’ll hear things like ending the war in Iraq, restoration of freedom, etc. and think: “Huh. A Republican who supports things that I support. Interesting.”

I’m not saying I think he can win, but I do think he’d be the best shot for a Republican White House (which is something that generally matters to Republicans). He’d get the one-issue Republicans to vote for him (since they’re almost all anti-abortion). He’d get interest from a number of middle-road Democrats who’d respond to his civil liberties message. And since pretty much anyone who’d vote for Guiliani or Huckabee would probably be more terrified of a White Hillary House, he’d likely get their votes as well.

Again, I don’t think he’ll win the primaries, but I don’t think he’d do poorly in the general if he did.