if I were an American, I’d vote for…
September 30th, 2008
There are things I like in both the Republican and Democratic party. I resonate with the social conservatism of the Republican party: their pro-life stand, their promotion of family values, and public morality; though I do not like their supply-side economics which favor the rich, and does not really “trickle down” to the poor. I like the Democrats for the way they seek ways to level the playing field, in opportunities, in health and education, in welfare for workers and the poor. I think the economy was doing better under Clinton than under the Bushes. There are Christian values that I admire in both parties and wish that there is a third party that incorporates the best of these, but can a new party survive in this jungle of giants.
I am going out on a limb here because this is not my country: Obama or McCain? Since Americans advocate freedom of expression, I’ll share my five cents worth. For me, if I were an American, I’d vote for the Obama ticket. Why so? Firstly, eight years of supply side economics have not brought about the trickle down effect promised (though I have to acknowledge 
the free trade agreement signed with Singapore could only be possible under the Republicans). When promises are not kept, its time to look to others. Secondly, under the Republicans, America stinks to most of the world, with an arrogance personified in the President himself. Americans deserve to be appreciated and honored all over the world but it takes a wise, courageous and compassionate government to reverse the tarnish of America’s good name. I think there is a higher chance Obama can deliver that. Thirdly, the entrenching of pro-life and pro-family values in the last eight years is not going to collapse overnight with the Democrats in power. In fact, it may allow time for a development of the neglected area of fair access to health and education for all, and welfare for the poor. Fourthly, the Democrats’ team look stronger to me in terms of ability to govern with good judgment. Fifthly, Americans can personify what they preach by electing their first Afro American President. Dr Martin Luther King’s bones will rattle in a dance of joy when this historic event takes place.
God bless and have mercy on the next American President as it will impact us even in sunny Singapore.
Look at current situation:-
A failed president presiding over a failed legislature trying to regulate a failed financial system. Lord what a mess!
But pastor, how could you!! God is definitely a Republican - didn’t you know?!
I’d vote for Obama too. Like you said, there are Christian values on both sides. One more plus point on the Democratic side and against the Republicans is that I’m not sure the government should be legislating personal morality! That’s not going to solve a lot of problems, but may make it even worse.
what about those who choose not to vote? ;>) (btw, I read that more than 40% of eligible American voters don’t vote…)
i could never vote for someone who is not pro-life!
I always use this example which my ex-lecturer Donald Chia used it, and I think Ben Witherington (a prominent contemporary evangelical biblical scholar) recently used it too (on his blog regarding deciding between Obama and Mad-Cain - any spelling mistakes are mine, hehe):
Do you prefer a Christian doctor who is pro-life, anti-abortion but has been poor in his skills in performing surgery to perform a heart surgery for you or do you prefer the surgery to be done by another surgeon who is pro-choice, pro-promiscuity (base on adult mutual consent), and has good track records in heart surgery to do the heart surgery for you?
Vote only for those who can do the job regardless of their religious faith or personal values. Even if Obama goes for monthly sex orgies (I am not saying anything right or wrong about that), it does not mean that Obama is not better than Mad-Cain in running America (assuming we are to choose between both of them).
Is a candidate’s values important to decide whether one should for him or her? Or has the current political and economic situation become so bad, no one cares what the candidates stand for so long as it is not the same|?
Do you know Obama’s worldview enough to endorse him ? Here a quote from Obama which which baffled many:
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”
What did Obama say?: IF his daughters “made a mistake”, became pregnant probably outside of marriage, Obama did not want them “punished with a baby” !
Wow! He is for killing the babies…….it ok…just a disease or nuisance like “STD”, just treat it ?
A candidate’s personal values is not generally not important and not relevant - what is relevant and important is whether the person is competent to do the job.
A surgeon can be a devout Christian but if he is known for being poor in surgery, we should choose another more competent surgeon to do the job regardless of the personal values of the more competent surgeon.
Obama’s statement may mean that he advocate the teaching of safer sex, how to use contraceptives, and other aspects of sex education.
Even if Obama advocates the freedom of conviction for people to either choose abortion or choose to have an unplanned baby, it is not relevant to whether or not he is more competent than McCain to manage America.
It is actually good for a country to allow people the freedom to practise their own conviction in the area of pro-life or pro-choice.
Why must Christians impose their values through law onto others? Do to others as you would others do to you. Surely Christians do not like to have a law that requires all teenage pregnancies to be aborted right? So the best is the freedom for all to do what they think is right in the issue of abortion.
My typo again. My first sentence is meant to say that “A candidate’s personal values are generally NOT IMPORTANT AND NOT RELEVANT to a person’s competency to do the job.
Obama or McCain?
We are starting to sound like the dumb Isrealites asking for a King and Judge - boy, were they both bad mistakes.
I think we need leaders because we need somebody to lead and ultimate take the blame when things dont pan out - an we ever have a servant-leader dynamic duo ever?
Both may bring worst than Bush jr but on a practical level because of massive economic failure, the next guy will be from the other party - Democrates should win.
Democrates should win indeed.
Between the two pairs of candidates,
Obama team is a lesser evil if people want to use evil as measure.
Obama team is the greater good if people want to use good as measure.
Among the four, Palin is the greatest evil, or the lowest good.
May the black man win. (it would be beautiful if Obama’s VP is a lady - perhaps Biden can change sex into a woman after winning, wahaha)
Since the election is almost here, this article below is worth a read:
Why I Can’t Vote For Obama
- By Huntley Brown - a Jamaican concert pianist October 21, 2008
http://www.crossroad.to/Victory/testimonies/obama-brown.htm
Any person presenting himself to assume office of President of the most powerful nation on this earth, regardless of his academic or professional competencies, his values and worldview do matter.
Politicians have values and morals???
They are expediant pragmatists - there are no permanent friends or enemies in this noble profession.
Will the USA continue to be the most powerful nation by becoming the biggest debtor nation ever?
For the next 4 years ? Of course ! No other country comes close.
What is worth to ponder: the most powerful nation on earth and one with the most debts, for sure the US would not be free to do what it wants and will be at the mercy of the loan sharks’ agenda.
Beyond the rhetoric, I really shudder to think that one should elect a person without a concern for what he or she really stand for. If a leader is elected solely on his/her competencies or rather empty election talks, no concern for his/her value system or worldview, ever wonder what the competent “leader” of the most powerful nation will do when the pressure really steps up ? Don’t forget, he/she has still the power to deploy the world most powerful arsenal at his/her finger tips and has to deal with the Putins of the world.
May God has mercy upon us !
4 years is a long time in view of the the last century. In the international politics, we see how in under the 4 years Gorbachev was in charge, the Soviet Union was unable to balance reform and communism and thus collapse. Of course there are fundamental differences between the Soviet Union and the US, but at that time, the Soviets were the only other Superpower.
US hegemony has been somewhat presumed in the post-Cold War era but it can definitely change in very rapidly. Bush’s second term saw the failure of the Iraqi intervention and US’ failure also to help its key ally Georgia in the Black Sea region. Clearly US hegemony is on the wane, particularly in the wake of the economic crisis, its declining political and moral capital in the international arena, and the rise of China, Russia, the Middle East and the region of anti-Americanism in South America.
However I do agree that worldview and values matter for not just the president of the US but for any head of state.
Samuel,
Thanks for the comment.
Who would you vote for if you were an American? and why?
that is something i have asked myself a lot in the past few weeks as well.
Obama has always been the more convincing speaker for me, even during the primaries when he ran against Hillary. I did prefer her policies until she came across as dishonest with the whole helicopter in kosovo affair.
I am totally supportive of Obama’s tax and healthcare plans BUT like most Christians I am also very concerned with his policies on social issues. That said, he did make a good argument in the first debate, that the Bush administration’s anti-abortion policies have not reduced the number of abortions in the past eight years, whereas allowing for abortions together with good sex education might reduce the need for abortions to begin with. Not that I agree entirely, but I accept his stand on this.
On his stand of homosexual civil unions, I am undecided. “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. But where do you draw the line?
I would vote Obama if I was American, as I find neoconservatism just does not agree with me.
Highly cynical view on politicians. In fact, I am of the view that most of the prominent politicians in the last century, have been guided by either values or a moral system that defined their political philosophy. More than merely populist rhetoric.
Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi among many revered leaders.
anyone but George Bush please!!
Conservative pro life people who talk about the rights of the unborn dont seem to have any qualms about bombing and kiilling innocent Iraqi civilians.
Liberal pro choice people who fuss over capital punishment dont seem to have problem about late term a abortions.
Democrat or Republican, Is there a difference?
If I were to be more nuanced, then I would say that certain values do not matter for the position of President of USA, while some other values do matter.
Values that do not matter would be things like one’s view on god, euthanasia, sex, abortion, polygamy, polyandry, open-marriage (e.g. husband and wife allowing each other to have sex with others) and other things which do not intrinsically causes obvious harm to others.
Iit is prefectly alright for the American President to be an atheist, or an agnostic, or Hindu or Taoist, to engage in orgies, to allow abortion, etc.
Such “values” mentioned are not moral values (even though some mistaken such things to be moral values). These things (e.g. sexual behaviour) are just non-moral codes of conduct.
Worldviews do not matter at all (i.e. it does not matter whether he holds a Polytheistic or Atheistic or Naturalistic Worldview).
Values that matters for the position of US Presidency would be the true moral values (e.g. his views on murder, cheating, violence, etc). We certainly do not want a Hitler to be the US President.
The most important criteria is still competency (assuming he is sufficiently moral in the true sense of the word “moral”) and definitely NOT the non-moral values such as his religion, his sexual views, his views regarding abortion, and so on.
Galatians 5:22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
This is clearly in the context of spiritual law, God’s law for us. Yet, is it mutually exclusive from the law that governs our society? I believe that the world would be rid of much of its problems if everyone had such “fruits”. I would have to respectfully disagree with your definition of a moral code.
And I also believe that value systems has to begin from the leadership. In law there is malum in se and malum prohibitum. The former refers to the prohibition of things which are inherently evil like you mentioned, while the latter is a customary law of sorts. If we are unconcerned with the US President’s value system, he can choose Judges to make up the judiciary branch.
This means that things that affect our lives - abortion, gay rights, woman’s rights, euthanasia, etc. - become codified as law if interpreted as constituional by the judges that the president chooses. If you ask me, it actually matters a lot.
The question is:
Which surgeon do you prefer to preform a heart surgery for you?
A skilful and experience heart surgeon who has 97% success rate and who believes in women’s rights to choose abortion, who believes in gays’ right to sex, who is Taoist, or another heart surgeon who has much less experience, with only 60% success rate, who is against abortion, against gay-sex, who is a Christian?
I guess most would prefer that competent Taoist surgeon to the relatively incompetent Christian surgeon.
Similarly, it is not important for the US President to have Christian values. What we need is the President to be competent with a sufficient level of moral values (without any need for the President to have any religious values at all).
Moral values are different from religious values.
[though a number of moral values are found in several religions, that does not mean that moral values = religious values; there are religious values (e.g. religious views about gay sex, about monogamy) that has nothing to do with moral values]
We tend to confuse moral values with religious values and cultural values.
Moral values has nothing to do with things like polygamy, monogamy, polyandry, gay sex, mini-skirt, kissing in public, cross-dressing, sex-change, women’s hair-covering (e.g. as demanded in some Muslim countries) and nudist beach. Different religions have different views on such matters.
All moral values are moral, while some religious values happened to be moral, some religious values happened to be non-moral or amoral, and some religious values happened to be immoral! (e.g. the religious value of burning the widow to death after her hushand died)
Which surgeon would I choose?
All things equal, I would choose a Christian surgeon… one who knows the great Healer and will be guided by Him… even in the surgery room.
But when things are not equal, such as in the case of a choice between a non-Christian surgeon (or Presidential candidate) who is competent in his job while a Christian surgeon (or Presidential candidate) who is relatively incompetent in his job, then most would rightly choose the competent over against the incompetent.
The example of unequal situations (one competent while the other being relatively incompetent) serves to highlight the essential criteria in the choice of surgeon/President - it is competency that matters and not a person’s religion or religious values.
[moral values matters too provided one understand the meaning of morality properly and not confuse moral values with religious values]
Buddhist lover,
I find it difficult to accept your delineation of vlaues into “religious” and “moral” ( and earlier, also “cultural” values.)
You seem to imply that there is such a thing as true moral values standing alone.
I qoute; “Values that matters for the position of US Presidency would be the true moral values (e.g. his views on murder, cheating, violence, etc).”
I happen to think that it is not so cleanly cut up. Certainly one’s religious values influence and morphs one’s moral values. For eg murder. What constitutes murder? Is it the Western Christian view or the Middle eastern Muslim view? Remember, there are different shades like first degree, manslaughter, misadventure… etc (Obviously you would go for the Western world definitions. But the Western world ideas about murder have also grown out of largely a Christian historical setting!) Further what was a coillateral damage of a bombing of a terrorist leader by the Americans is viewed as the indiscriminate murder of innocents by the Arabs.
In other words, moral values are intrinsically tied up to one’s core (religious) beliefs. Whether you believe you are accountable to a “higher authority” or not certainly affects your value systems, be you the President or the man on the street. The value system(moral or otherwise) of a Biblical Christian is intrinsically different from a Buddhist or a Muslim though there may be some areas of overlaps.
I am fully aware that many Christian political leaders (despite their valuies systems) seem to have failed to perform better or as well as others.
That brings me to my question. Can Christians make good political leaders? Do our Christian values hinder our functioning in the dog eat dog world of politics?
shalom
I will try to elaborate further when I am free.
It takes at least one thick book to elaborate the meaning of morality.
I would vote for Obama.
I could not accept a Christian who is a warmonger,
and it goes against my faith because Jesus brings peace
through His message of Love and not hate through the
sword
just an honest question:
this is going way off tangent, but in the last day, if we know who the antichrist is, is it ok to wage war against him if we are in the position to do so?
(yeah, this is waaayyyy off topic, sorry about that.)
another thing, would democracy be considered inherently “sinful” as a concept, since it is rule by the people, versus rule by God? (Obviously it is better than other regime-types, but going back to before the time of judges and kings, when Israel used to be a theocracy.)
This is too heavy for me to carry, Sam.
Hmm…I am afraid I’ll drown if I attempt to answer them, though someone from blogosphere may venture to respond to your queries.
Help!
There are Christians (e.g. the contemporary NT scholar cum clergy Ben Witherington; also contemporary theologians like Yoder and Hauerwas) who believed that base on the NT documents we have, it is likely that Jesus would not want us to engage in war - even if we are warring against evil. (yep, this is a Christian pacifist position).
The War and the economy are the main issues, hence are valid.
You will never be able to wage war against the anti-christ through the physical sword, and if you try, that is where Satan wants you to be.
That is why Jesus stopped Peter and the disciples from making it an all out physical war between the religious leaders. They might even win with Jesus having such a strong following. Then what?
So they conquered Iraq? then what? another million deaths?
The battle is in the Spiritual world, with amazing amount of deception in the physical. Jesus lost the physical war - Satan beat Him up badly and crucified Him, but He won the Spiritual war.
When we start using the sword, we take away the message of Christ, and soon there is no control over what we killed or rationalise as evil, and soon we become the anti-christ.
thanks for the reply!
it seems to be an indictment of so many a Christian politician for not being Christlike.
For “Buddhist Lover”, it appears that the value system he/she subscribed to is “Utilitarianism”: “the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility, that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons”.
For “Buddhist Lover”: the end justify the means……….even if the means are morally corrupt or ethically wrong or downright sinful.
Yet it is strange that “Buddhist Lover” also said: “We certainly do not want a Hitler to be the US President.” ?
Question: What IF Hilter is still alive today and he is the world’s most competent man (by your surgeon’s analogy), then why won’t not want him to be your leader ?
So…there is a clear contradiction in your reasoning and reasoning ?
There is no contradiction in my reasoning, but perhaps your perceived contradiction is a result of “what you perceived what I mean” instead of “what I was saying”.
Busy now - will come back to elaborate.
I do not agree with Buddhist-lover’s stand for the qualities of a leader, but I must take his side in saying that the example of Hitler is a highly inappropriate one.
In his defence, he did differentiated between morals that are absolute and customary.
Hitler’s genocide and expansionist foreign policy meant a regime that attacked Western Europe, Russia and all political opposition within Germany. Not to mention the holocaust. That hardly strikes me as politically adroit to begin with.
In explaining that Obama is more suited because of his abilities, despite his obvious far-left record, I would HARDLY describe him as Machiavellian in “the end justifies the means”.
I’d advice re-reading BL’s comments within the context of the US elections.
Samuel observed rightly that my position is not about “the end justifies the means”.
The reader “Thy Word Is Truth” should not misrepresent me so badly to say that I believe in “the ends justifies the means…even if the means are morally corrupt or ethically wrong or downright sinful”.
One ought to listen very carefully to what the Other is saying instead of so quickly imposing a negative image onto the Other.
All I was saying was that the essential criteria for a person to do the work of a President/surgeon is his/her competency to carry out the role. HIs religion does not matter at all. His religious values do not matter at all. If any values matter, it will be only those belong to the category of true morality.
Sometimes some of a person’s religious values are immoral! (e.g. a leader who supports the slavery system, justifying slavery from the Christian bible).
Competency and morality matters for a person to do a job (e.g. surgery or corporate management or managing the country as the US President); religions or religious values do not matter for a person to do a job.
AS LONG AS a person’s religious values do not contradict common morality or public morality or true morality, I do not care what his religious values are (so it is ok if the US President is an Atheist or Agnostic).
And a person in public office must separate his religious values from his work. He needs to know the difference between public reasoning and his religious institution’s reasoning. So a Christian/Muslim leader who happened to hold a religious view that the will of God/Allah is against heavy drinking in pubs/bars ought not pass a law to ban the operation of pubs/bars in a pluralistic society. Any basis of action must not rest upon his religious values but should rest upon public/common reasoning.
I disagree with the comparison with a surgeon simply because it downplays too much the socio-cultural aspects of a Presidency. It is arguable that the essential skills are simply economic wizardry and being adroit in diplomacy. You did acknowledge that moral values do matter, but not religious values.
Technocrats have been in power in China in the post-Mao era, bringing prosperity through the communist-style regime (albeit slowly economically liberal). But technical expertise that has allowed China to prosper, does not necessarily mean that China has been a better society for it.
I understand where you come from with the ’separation of the church and state’, but from a Christian point-of-view, I think religious values should matter to Christians, at least in part.
The Christians must be fair to non-Christians in the sense we should prefer a President who can be unbiased towards any religion/worldview (i.e. including Atheism & Agnosticism).
Hence I stressed that religious values of a President ought not matter to a Christian just as it ought not matter to Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics etc.
In a pluralistic nation, I always choose a situation such that it is fair to people from various religions and worldviews (e.g. atheism), on the condition that morality must not be contradicted.
Even in China’s case, what matters are not religious values. If there is any problem with China, it is not about religious values. It can be an issue of competency or morality or a mixture of a bit of both, or some other non-religious factor.
Similarly, the religious or non-religious worldviews of Lee Hsien Long & Lee Kuan Yew are not relevant factors to their suitability to govern Singapore. Christians ought to expect from these political leaders in the same way that Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics etc expect from these political leaders. Christians ought not expect these Singapore leaders to take actions that would be favourable to Christian values while unfavourable to values of other religions and worldviews, just as Buddhists(for example) ought not expect these Singapore leaders to take actions that are favourable to Buddhists while unfavourable to Christians, Muslims, HIndus, Atheists etc.
Underlying all these is the importance of political leaders being fair to all religions (including Atheism & Agnosticism), giving all these groups the freedom to live according to their convictions (hence it is wise for leaders not to pass any law to ban mass orgies - some time ago newspapers reported the active mass orgies where even husbands and wives participated together - and not to pass any law to ban prostitution per se, and not to pass any law to ban gambling per se, and not to pass any law to ban late night heavy drinking, and not prosecuting consensual adult gay-sex, and not passing law to ban lots of other things which some religious persons call “sins” - all these “religious sins” are not issues of common morality but merely issues of certain religions’ value-system).
amended last paragraph of my previous post to read as follow:
Underlying all these is the importance of political leaders being fair to all religions (including Atheism & Agnosticism), giving all these groups the freedom to live according to their convictions (hence our PM Lee Hsien Long & MM Lee Kuan Yew have been very wise not to pass any law to ban mass orgies - some time ago newspapers reported the active mass orgies where even husbands and wives participated together - and not to pass any law to ban prostitution per se, and not to pass any law to ban gambling per se, and not to pass any law to ban late night heavy drinking, and not prosecuting consensual adult gay-sex, and not passing law to ban lots of other things which some religious persons call “sins” - all these “religious sins” are not issues of common morality but merely issues of certain religions’ value-system).
Yes, prostitution is legal in Singapore. It is regulated but legal. Only active solicitation by prostitutes in public is illegal. Prostitution per is morally neutral (we must not confused morality with religious values).
[…] (who has a series on “Barracking 4 Barack” if you search his archives) and the other is Kenny (aka Blogpastor) who pastors a church i Singapore. […]
good article, the elections should not be the be all and end all if our faith is in God.
Obama is President of USA!
My heart’s desire and prayer!
That’s good news to me
He said his taxation policy will be along the line of higher tax for the wealthy.
And better PR with the other nations.