What Exactly Does Voting Signify?


Voting is not a question of “I don't like that person or their policies so I will vote for a different person.” It is a question of voting for the person whose policies you approve of and support. When you vote for someone, you are, in essence, saying the following:
1. I approve of their policies,
2. I agree with their policies,
3. I support their policies, and
4. I am granting my candidate, if they win, the right to speak on my behalf regarding foreign and domestic policies.
If you vote for a person who is pro-gun control, that means you support gun control. If you vote for a person who supports open immigration, that means you support open immigration. If you vote for a person who is pro-choice, that means you support their pro-choice policies, and if you vote for a person who supports the LGBT agenda, that means you support the LGBT agenda. When you vote for someone, that means you support their policies as they relate to the governing of the nation.

Voting the Lesser of Two Evils

This is more for Christians than anyone else, as it is Christians who are impacted the most when faced with this decision. Should Christian's vote the “lesser of two evils?” Before answering this, there are certain things that should be taken into consideration. Firstly, we have to understand that Jesus is not on the ballot, therefore, when we vote we will be voting for one sinner or another. When we vote, casting our vote for a sinner is something that cannot be helped. It is something that we are just going to have to deal with. Deciding which sinner to vote for is going to require some research in order to determine which one to cast our vote for, and it can be a challenge. We should take into consideration whether a candidate is, based on their words and actions, anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-Israel, and anti-Bible.

In other words, does he or she support or reject the Biblical moral values that God has established? Does he or she support the LGBT agenda? Does he or she support abortion? Does he or she support assisted suicide or euthanasia? Does he or she support corruption, inequality, discrimination, or the subversion of justice? As Christians we should vote for and support the candidate whose positions are most closely aligned with the word of God; otherwise, we are voting for and supporting someone who is actively against God, and Scripture has something to say about this.

The Apostle Paul urges us in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 to “abstain from every form of evil,” to eschew every kind of evil and not partake in it. This is not very different from the LORD's command in Exodus 23:2, “you shall not fall in with the many to do evil.” The reason for this is because God does not delight in evil! (Psalm 5:4). In fact, part of being a Christian, the primary essence of Christianity, is loving the Lord, which includes following His example and hating evil. Period. (Proverbs 8:13). There is no legitimate excuse for supporting or justifying evil of any kind, and doing so is an abomination to the Lord (Proverbs 17:15); and as the prophet Isaiah said, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).

There are those, however, who argue that voting the lesser of two evils is necessary in order to prevent a greater evil. The problem with this argument is that voting for the lesser of two evils – especially when one considers that evil, as understood in this context, means anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-Israel and anti-Bible – is still voting for and supporting evil! There is no justification, no rationale, no logic that can change that. The only way to not vote for evil (again in the context of this article) is not simply not vote for evil. Again, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. The idea of supporting the lesser evil in order that the greater good might prevail is soundly condemned in Scripture (Romans 3:8) and should be avoided by Christians. And, “whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” (James 4:17).

If You Don't Vote, You Can't Complain

Recently, during a political conversation with a very good friend, the comment was made, “if you don't vote, can't complain” about the policies and actions of whomever is elected. I have heard this before and I have to say that I have never agreed with it. [Note: since the person with whom I was recently having this conversation will be reading this, I hope they will not take what I am about to write the wrong way. I have issue with the statement, not the person making it.]

The implications of this statement are serious. This statement implies that voting is somehow connected to the First Amendment, and by not voting a persons First Amendment rights are somehow nullified. In reality, however, nothing could be further from the truth. If a person chooses to abstain from voting they still retain the Constitutionally protected right to complain to their hearts content, not only about how the government it being run, but about any and every thing else as well.

Additionally (and I apologize for making this somewhat personal), like me, there are many who have served in the United States armed forces, and many of have served in Law Enforcement. Those who have done so have, in many cases, voluntarily offered to sacrifice their lives in order to not only protect this country and her citizens, but also to ensure the many freedoms this country enjoys; including the freedom to either vote or not vote, and to freely express one's opinions in the public square. If I choose not to vote (and to date I have every intention of voting), not only does the Constitution guarantee me the right to voice my opinions, but wearing both the uniform of the United States Navy and the uniform and badge of state law enforcement have earned me the right to voice my opinions regarding the policies and actions of my government.

Alternatives

At the end of the day, when it's all said and done, the hard truth that we must accept is that our personal decision to regarding who to vote for is not going to have any effect whatsoever on the identity of our next President. Presidents are not decided by popular vote, but by the Electoral College, and the electors who make up that body are not bound by any law, or any Constitutional amendment to vote the will of the people. They are completely free to vote for whomever they choose. But that does not mean our vote is useless. When we vote we are expressing how we want our government to be run. When we vote we are expressing our values and our morals. And, while others may not know who we vote for or why we voted for them (unless we tell them), we can be sure that we are not alone in that voting booth. The Lord is right there beside us, watching us and evaluating our decisions and the thoughts behind them.

As it currently stands, as of today, it looks like we will have at least four candidates to choose from on election day this upcoming November. In reality, however, we actually have far more to choose from. There are about 1,300 third party candidates to choose from this year, all seeking our votes.

So there are plenty of candidates to choose from, all it takes is a little time to do the research and determine which candidate supports the issues that you support. And, if a suitable candidate is not found, there is always the option of simply abstaining, refusing to waste your vote on a candidate who does not support the issues you care about.

I have communicated with a great many Atheists, Agnostics, and Liberals over the years. I have read many articles written by them and watched videos produced by them. As a result I have learned a great deal from them all, and here I would like to share some of what I have learned. And yes, these are all things that have actually been expressed by self-professing Atheists, Agnostics and Liberals. Are they representative of all Atheists, Agnostics and Liberals? No. However, the majority of those whom I have been exposed to have expressed these and similar sentiments.

10 Things I have learned from Atheism, and Liberalism:

1. Yes, you can actually hate something that you don't believe exists.

2. Tolerance is only reserved for those who unquestioningly agree with you.

3. Because some white person, somewhere, at some period in time spit on a black person; any black person spitting on any white person, anywhere and at anytime, is fully justified.

4. Equality means I deserve to be treated better than you.

5. Forcing someone to change their religious beliefs is persecution, unless you're a Christian in America. Then it's not really persecution, just a figment of your overactive imagination.

6. Denying someone equal access because of their religion is discrimination, unless you're a Christian in America. Then it's not discrimination, just a figment of your overactive imagination.

7. Atheism is the most tolerant of ideologies, and there are too many Christians and not enough lions (and no that isn't persecution, that's just a figment of your overactive imagination.)

8. Liberalism is the most tolerant of ideologies, and if you believe the Bible then you are no different than the Nazi's and ISIS. (and no that isn't persecution, that's just a figment of your overactive imagination.)

9. Everyone is entitled to openly express their opinions and beliefs. That is their right. Unless they are a Christian, then they should be forced to keep their opinions to themselves. (and no that isn't persecution, that's just a figment of your overactive imagination.)

10. All Atheists and all liberals are intellectual, learned, logical, rational, and rely on proven scientific facts upon which to prove their ideologies. All Christians are backward, ignorant, superstitious, racist, bigots, homophobes, hateful, and often inbred rednecks with guns.

Since becoming a Christian, I have also learned a great many things that are apparently antithetical to both Atheism, Agnosticism and Liberalism, such as:

10 Things I Have Learned from Christianity:
1. Every human being is equal in the eyes of God, therefore do not show partiality towards anyone (Romans 10:12; James 2:1-13).

2. Loving others with a sacrificial love is always the right thing to do (Matthew 25:34-40; John 15:12; 1 John 3:18).

3. Treat others as you would have them treat you (Matthew 7:12).

4. Treat your enemies with love, respect, and forgiveness (Matthew 6:14-15 Luke 6:27-36).

5. Do not speak out in anger, or disrespectfully, or divisively; but always in kindness and love with the purpose of encouraging and forgiving and helping others (Matthew 12:36-37; Ephesians 4:29-32; James 1:19)

6. Be patient, kind, compassionate, and respectful to others, even your enemies (Colossians 3:12-14; Proverbs 24:17).

7. Don't be vengeful. Don't look for “paybacks” (Romans 12:17-21).

8. Don't be self-centered or selfish. Look to the needs of others and help. (Romans 15:1-2; Philippians 2:4)

9. Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal and don't even think about stealing. It's wrong. (Exodus 20:14-17; Deuteronomy 5:18-21)

10. Don't commit murder (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17)

I am not going to make a judgment call as to which of these two groups is better, or more beneficial to society, as I am confident you already know. But I would like to put these out there for you, the reader, to make up their own mind, and be confident in their own mind and heart as to the benefits of each.

Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats?

Written by Archibald Brown (1844-1922)

An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence, that the most shortsighted can hardly fail to notice it during the past few years. It has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them.

From speaking out as the Puritans did, the church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.

My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the church. If it is a Christian work, why did not Christ speak of it? "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). That is clear enough. So it would have been if He had added, "and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel." No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him.

Then again, "He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers .., for the work of the ministry" (Eph. 4:11-12). Where do entertainers come in? The Holy Spirit is silent concerning them. Were the prophets persecuted because they amused the people or because they refused? The concert has no martyr roll.

Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all his apostles. What was the attitude of the church to the world? Ye are the salt" (Matt. 5:13), not the sugar candy---something the world will spit out not swallow. Short and sharp was the utterance, "Let the dead bury their dead" (Matt. 8:22) He was in awful earnestness.

Had Christ introduced more of the bright and pleasant elements into his mission, he would have been more popular when they went back, because of the searching nature of His teaching. I do not hear him say, "Run after these people Peter and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it. Be quick Peter, we must get the people somehow." Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them.

In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of this gospel of amusement! Their message is, "Come out, keep out, keep clean out!" Anything approaching fooling is conspicuous by its absence. They had boundless confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon.

After Peter and John were locked up for preaching, the church had a prayer meeting but they did not pray, "Lord grant unto thy servants that by a wise and discriminating use of innocent recreation we may show these people how happy we are." If they ceased not from preaching Christ, they had not time for arranging entertainments. Scattered by persecution, they went everywhere preaching the gospel. They turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6). That is the only difference! Lord, clear the church of all the rot and rubbish the devil has imposed on her, and bring us back to apostolic methods.

Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the church met them halfway, speak and testify. Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment has been God's link in the chain of the conversion, stand up! There are none to answer. The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for today's ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire.





Archibald Geikie Brown (18 July 1844 – 2 April 1922) was a Calvinistic Baptist minister; a student, friend, and associate of Charles Spurgeon; and from 1908 to 1911, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, the church earlier pastored by Spurgeon.

Richard Dawkins, the Patron Saint of Atheism, wrote in his 2013 autobiography, “religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a ‘they’, as opposed to a ‘we’ can be identified.” Dawkins posited that if religion could be done away with altogether (the dream of every red-blooded Atheist), then there would be, “a much better chance of no more war.” Dawkins goes on to attribute war and hatred almost exclusively to religion, saying that without religion, there would be “less hatred” in the world.

Atheists have glommed onto Dawkins' rhetoric as if it were gospel truth, and they have been consistently repeating and defending his belief that religion is the principal cause of war and hatred in the world. But just how much truth is there to Dawkins' statements? As it turns out, not much at all.

To try and either prove or disprove his statements, I decided to put Dawkins' statements to the test, and compare them with documented facts, to history, and see how they match up. Before I get into that I want to disclose the parameters I used and why. What follows are two primary charts and two secondary. The first primary chart contains a list of non-religious based wars, the time period within which they occurred, and the number of casualties incurred (deaths only, not those wounded). In order to keep the chart manageable, and to give Dawkins the benefit of the doubt (somewhat) by keeping the numbers down as much as I reasonably could, I only counted those wars which have occurred since the American War of Independence (1775), and I have only included those wars with a casualty rate of at least 10,000 deaths.

The second primary chart contains all religious based or inspired wars and conflicts from 1095 to the present. I chose the 1095 date in order to include the Crusades since Atheists always want to include them in discussions such as these in order to illustrate what they claim is the barbarity of Christianity as compared to other religious beliefs. This list will show the name of the war/conflict, the time period within which they occurred, the number of deaths involved, and which religious group was responsible. You will notice that for those wars and conflicts that are blamed on Christianity (such as the Crusades and the Inquisitions) I have listed the responsible group as “Pseudo-Christianity.” The reason for this is simply that the wanton killing, massacre and genocide of human beings is antithetical to Christianity, therefore it is inaccurate to attribute these things to Christianity.

To start the ball rolling, I thought I would note an interesting figure from the three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod, which notes there have been roughly 1,763 wars waged throughout human history. Of these, only 123 have been justified using religion. That's less than 7%. And for those who are bound to wonder, of those 123 religious wars, more than half of them – 66 to be precise – were waged in the name of Islam.

The first primary chart shown here features all non-religious wars between 1775 and 2011:

The second primary chart shows all religious wars between 1095 and the present:

So, the final tally is, the number of those killed by non-religious wars is between 120,290,396 and 180,896,390; and the number of those killed by religious wars is between 54,950,392 and 67,387,728.

As you can clearly see, the casualties for non-religious wars are significantly higher than the number for religious wars. And, just as clearly, not only was Richard Dawkins wrong in his assessment, but so are those who relentlessly support and propagate his myth.

And just as an aside for those who might be curious (as I know some are), of those 54,950,392 – 67,387,728 religious war casualties, between 27,106,392 and 28,821,728 were due to Islamic fueled wars and between 7,970,300 and 18,598,000 were due to wars fueled by Pseudo-Christian groups. Just as it is clear that significantly more people died during non-religious wars, it is equally clear that significantly more people have died during Islamic fueled wars than during those fueled by Pseudo-Christian groups.

Before I close this article, I have two more related charts that I would like to share, containing statistics that were not included in the above charts (with the exception of Hitler and Tojo's numbers). The first is the number of deaths attributed to Atheist regimes and governments, and the second chart contains the number of dead and wounded as a result of Islamic terrorist attacks.

Secondary Chart #1:

Secondary Chart #2:

As I mentioned above, these Islamic terrorist attacks are not included in the non-religious wars chart above. They are in addition to it. This chart also does not include those deaths attributable to ISIS, who alone account for more than 20,000 deaths since it declared its Caliphate, with 6,073 in 2014 alone. All in the name of Islam.


Of course, there are those, most notably President Obama and Hillary Clinton, who have stated that ISIS is not connected in any way to Islam, that ISIS is not Islamic, however, there are others, including Al-Azhar, Islam's oldest university, who have just as clearly stated that ISIS is Islamic, and they have laid out what I believe are very well reasoned explanations as to why they say that. If you would like to read more on just how Islamic ISIS actually is, here are links to some of the articles I mentioned:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/18/does-isis-really-have-nothing-to-do-with-islam-islamic-apologetics-carry-serious-risks/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roy-abbas/think-isis-are-not-islami_b_8608048.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-islamic-islamic-state-group-anchored-islam-uncomfortable-truth-bbc-religion-2377140

http://counterjihad.com/indian-muslim-scholars-vs-common-sense-al-azhar

http://www.dailywire.com/news/2161/islams-oldest-university-says-isis-are-not-james-barrett

--------------------------------------------

Research Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_conflicts_in_the_Middle_East

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

http://victimsofcommunism.org/north-korea-under-communism-1948-2014/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Korea

http://www.strangenotions.com/spanish-inquisition/

http://thecripplegate.com/how-many-people-died-in-the-inquisition/

http://www.campaign1776.org/revolutionary-war/facts-of-the-american.html

http://www.spanamwar.com/genealogy6.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/14/religions-war-cause-responsible-evidence_n_6156878.html

www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/middleeast/iraq-civilian-death-toll/

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-death-toll-18-800-killed-iraq-2-years-u-n499426

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/isis-syria-death-casualty-count

https://carm.org/religion-cause-war

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/was-obama-right-about-the-crusades-and-islamic-extremism-analysis/2015/02/06/3670628a-ae46-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html

http://www.sharefaith.com/guide/christian-apologetics/myth-busters-in-apologetics.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

https://www.ushmm.org/confront-genocide/cases/bosnia-herzegovina

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-did-Hitler-kill

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP10.HTM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

https://www.quora.com/Which-religion-is-responsible-for-the-greatest-number-of-deaths-of-infidels-over-its-entire-history

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-have-died-because-of-religion

http://madworldnews.com/islam-270-million-death-toll/