Vote Wisely --

[CGMedley]

An Adventist theologian shares biblical principles for exercising our civic duty. Read more

http://www.adventistreview.org/article/5725/archives/issue-2012-1527/vote-wisely

[olger]

Very thought provoking.

[Jeannieb43]

This article tends to promote a political position. Which is objectionable to me.

[doug yowell]

Good for S.J.Kidder!! Too bad he even needed to remind us of these things. On the other hand, how can I take a guy named Kidder seriously? Ellen White noted that we are obligated to cast our votes on the side of temperance and virtue (if we're still capable of deciphering those things). Mostly, a good article.

[Woody]

Professor Kidder has stayed in my home as a guest. I value his thoughts.

[doug yowell]

Very thought provoking.

Vote wisely but don't make any political comments about what the article says wisely may look like when looking to vote wisely in a political election??

[lazarus]

This article tends to promote a political position. Which is objectionable to me.

This brother could have done a better job disguising his republican leanings.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Jeannieb43

This article tends to promote a political position. Which is objectionable to me.

This brother could have done a better job disguising his republican leanings.

Was his advice in harmony or in contradiction to EGW's advice on the principles of voting? She used the words temperance and virtue to describe what we should be voting for. When those principles become political issues what's the SDA voter supposed to do?

[phkrause]

This brother could have done a better job disguising his republican leanings.

I have no problem with that Lazarus, they did that back when Kennedy was running. What I do object to is when we are telling others who to vote for.

[JoeMo]

Doesn't this discussion belong in one of the political forums?

Is it really an issue for Adventists today? Even though I like the article, is how I vote really gonna have much effect of the direction the church/country/world is going? Candidates can promise all they want; and it don't mean squat unless they can get their agenda through the House and Senate. I see how good that's been working the past 15-20 years ...

[phkrause]

Candidates can promise all they want; and it don't mean squat unless they can get their agenda through the House and Senate. I see how good that's been working the past 15-20 years ...

Excellent point JoeMo

[Woody]

Quote:

Doesn't this discussion belong in one of the political forums?

You bring up a good point. I've yet though to figure out the criteria for what belongs here and what belongs in the political forum.

<shaking me head>

[JoeMo]

Good point, Woody. I've received emails more than once about starting topics where they don't belong. I fugure if I'm not failing sometimes, I'm not trying hard enough.

Hey! That might be an effective campaign slogan for certain candidates!

[Woody]

I have my own theories or principles that I use JoeMo. Of course they are not approved - so they get vetoed. LOL. But if in my judgment the post is controversial and might develop heated political interactions - I put them in the politics thread.

[Alchemy]

The article was good overall, but this is all confusing.

Why vote at all?!? Why not stay home if none of the candidates meet all the tests you need to be satisfied?

Even though I am against abortion and gay rights, that doesn't make a Republican good enough! Even though economics and helping the poor are important, that doesn't make the Democrats good enough!

And then you have these men, supposedly guided by the Constitution and not the Bible! Consequently, they can not show any respect for a particular religion!

I used to vote for most issues and positions I could think of. Now, I stay home.

[Guest]

This article tends to promote a political position. Which is objectionable to me.

So you think having no position, is the best position?

[Tom Wetmore]

To the confused ones, here is my take on the article. It dances on the edge of that fine line between what is OK and what should be taken to the political dump. It hasn't quite crossed the line and with a few minor exceptions, the comments thus far haven't either. Somethings can easily be edited to preserve the point or discussion. Sometimes politics invades and spreads like a cancer, destroying the conversation.

Here is what pushes it over the line. Statements for or against any declared candidate for public office. (Sometimes the intended target is unambiguously obvious even without being identified specifically.) And partisan bickering, name calling, personal attacks and flame throwing go bye-bye too.

Here's what's OK until it devolves into either of the above - talking about issues, discussing the political process, civic responsibility to vote, being an informed citizen.

And sometimes it comes down to a coin toss...

[JoeMo]

Tom,

I'm cool with that!

[Woody]

Folks - just a reminder. This is not a political thread - so politics should not be mentioned.

[Guest]

What is politics?

[Guest]

I've heard of it before.

[JoeMo]

Politics is part of the Unholy Trinity discussed in Rev. 16:13-14 (Politics, Economics, and Religion).

[phkrause]

Politics is part of the Unholy Trinity discussed in Rev. 16:13-14 (Politics, Economics, and Religion).

Not sure I agree with that, but I will say that politics is definitely unholy.

[Gerr]

The problem is that even with the criteria he mentioned, the choice of a candidate is still not clearcut because both candidates hold a mixture of positions, some of which will agree with your own and some against.

[phkrause]

Absolutely Gerry