All the news can seem to talk about is this new political figure – Gov. Sarah Palin, AK-R, and her religious right tendencies. From her attending a church service in where a guest speaker said that Israelis – i.e. Jews in Israel suffered terrorist attacks because they did not believe in Jesus, to her being raised Pentecostal. Next, because of her beliefs being brought up, the attacks on Barak Obama’s beliefs also resurfaced (he received no help from his “my Muslim faith” “slip”). Everything from his alledged Islamic faith, to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy. If you had in John Hagee’s previous endorsement of McCain – then McCain not wanting to be associated with someone who calls the Roman Catholic Church the Anti-Christ, to pictures of Joe Biden going to Catholic Mass, religion once again is playing a seemingly crucial part of the 2008 Presidential Election. My question is why?
First, very few, if any major politicians in the United States, especially in the Presidential elections, have been anything but “Christian.” All of the way from President George Washington on down through Presdent George W. Bush, they have all claimed the Christian faith, and have attended services of worship, and have even had “pastoral advisers,” probably most famously Rev. Billy Graham. Is it because the religious right helped insure the election of President George Bush, famously the most infamous president – other then maybe Richard Nixon, in our nation’s history, that Christianity is playing such a large role in the discussion? Or is it the religious left vs. religious right… pro-life vs. pro-choice, pro-gay vs. pro-hetero (I know that probably isn’t a term), pro-patriarchy vs. pro-feminism? Ironically, neither side can claim autonomy on either side. In fact, what is the religious right, and what is the religious left? Would it be more correct to say the Christian right and left, or is that even too much. For, on one side, people say how can you be a Roman Catholic and be pro-choice? OR, how can you be a Christian and not love the homosexual, condemning them. How can you believe in a God who subjugateswomen, and so on and so on. It is interesting to me that even the so called “believers in Christ” cannot even agree on seemingly so many important issues. Maybe Christianity is not progressive enough, maybe Jesus Christ was meant only for the time in which He was born – maybe that is why He had to be born then. At the same time, maybe Christianity has gone too far – in both directions. The moniker, “What Would Jesus Do,” is ridiculous to me, however, who would Jesus vote for? IT is obvious He would vote, if He were a citizen of the USA. He obviously believed in the role of government, and in the civil support of the government – i.e. render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and so forth, even though most modern historians claim Him to be a revolutionary. Would Jesus make each candidates faith the central issue, would he make their actions? Their judgments? Would He care is Gov. Palin spoke in tongues (she was raised Pentecostal), or if Barak Obama’s pastor was inflamatory? If I recall, John the Baptist was pretty inflamatory. What issues would matter to Jesus? And which issues would simply blow off of his robes like chaff in the wind? In fact, would Jesus’s message or love, personal devotion to God, and personal service to each other even reach the ears of the people in the world today? Would Jesus be touted as a liberal, or reviled as a conservative? All of the questions, to me, are interesting, as well as seeminly important. For, if we claim to be Christian, no matter of the fact if we are liberal or conservative, if we are to truly claim to be Christ-like, we must ask ourselves, “How Would Jesus Vote?” We have to ask ourselves, do we even care? And if we do not care, then why do we believe, or even, do we believe? For if Jesus is the Savior or the World, then I am pretty sure his opinions, and His vote, would be the most important of all.