Never a Religious Reason to Choose a Candidate

There are religious reasons not to vote at all. A true Christian following Jesus Christ’s example would stay neutral when it came to politics. A Christian would not look to politics to solve mankind’s problems. History has shown politics is not the answer.
Jesus declined to get involved in politics.
Jesus' response was based on at least three factors: his Father's view of expressions of human self-determination, which include human rule; Jesus' awareness that there are powerful, hidden forces working against even the best human efforts at rulership; and God's purpose to establish a heavenly government to rule over the entire earth.
Jesus stayed out of politics because he knew that at a future set time, God would establish a heavenly government to rule over the earth. The Bible calls this government God's Kingdom, and it was the main theme of Jesus' teaching. (Luke 4:43; Revelation 11:15) Jesus taught his disciples to pray for that Kingdom to come, for only under its rule will 'God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' (Matthew 6:9, 10)
Daniel 2:44 says, "In the days of those kings [ruling at the end of the present system] the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these [man-made] kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite." God's Kingdom will have to "crush" earthly rulerships because these insist on perpetuating the God-defying spirit of self-determination promoted by Satan back in the garden of Eden. In addition to working against mankind's best interests, those who strive to perpetuate that spirit put themselves on a collision course with the Creator. (Psalm 2:6-12; Revelation 16:14, 16)

Jesus always did things God's way. Instead of choosing an independent course and trying to prop up or improve the existing system of things by political means, he worked hard to advance the interests of God's Kingdom, the only solution to the world's ills.

God's Kingdom is the real key to a truly happy world, and the message announcing it is rightly described as good news.

In order to help people make an informed decision about rulership, Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach the "good news of the kingdom . . . in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations" before the end of the present system comes. (Matthew 24:14)

This is the message all true Christians should preach: God’s Kingdom is the only solution to the world’s problems.

Of course, if embedded in your comment is the notion that the religious vote is part of the right wing revolution and that, by your definition, it is the "intolerance faction," you must conclude, then, that such religious voters are bringing a "general debacle" on themselves.

But how is a religious person to vote? Aren't some policy propositions closer or farther from one's understanding of God's will? If, for example, one really believes abortion is repugnant to God's will, how can one vote for candidates who advocate that policy?

Mr. Chopra,

Your books have just moved from my bookshelf to my recycle bin.

Unbelievable.

Jodie

Chopra shows himself to be a partisan hack. Why he is writing about faith is a mystery. Making money, yes. Faith, no. This whole On Faith blog is more about hating God than faith.

Deepek Chopra has only ONE GOD and that is the ALL MIGHTY DOLLAR!!! He has a fancy Beverly Hills salon will he scams with wealthy with all kinds of charms and potions for a bundle of cash. He knocked Sarah Palin and others for their small town values but had the nerve to go to Scranton, PA for right price per person. Even some small town people can be scammed it seems. Swami Chopra talks a good game but look into his business dealings and you will find a total scam artist!!! THIS GUY IS THE JIMMY SWAGGART, PAT ROBERTSON, TAMMY FAY BAKER OF THE LEFT!!! HE IS A MONEY HUNGRY, SCAMMING CHARLTON!!!

Gee, since ACORN registered dead people to vote, it seems only natural that GOD should have a say in the election.

How has the Republican Party been more "thoroughly discredited" than the Democratic party?

The democrats, led by Barnie Frank, who said that federal oversight of the mortgage industry and stricter credit requirements for mortgage buyers was "unfair", helped in great part to bring us our financial crisis.

Democratic party driven protectionism of the auto industry, steel industry and farming as well as unions (since the late 1960s) have devastated American industry.

And the only reason the Democrats haven't been "thoroughly discredited" is because it takes more than the rhetoric in a 60 second commercial to see how their policies have destroyed our economy.

It wasn't "outsourcing" that created our problems, it was the policies of the Democratic party that drove up costs of US labor and parts. It was protectionism that allowed US companies to do sell products that were of lesser quality and higher costs than those from Japan and other countries. It was protectionism, tariffs and subsidies that allowed American businesses to become non-competitive in world markets.

Your article is nothing more than an attempt to support Obama for president by trying to make people feel guilty for voting their conscience.

And, your "positive trends" are insulting and inane. Tell me about the wonderful contributions of atheists and agnostics. How modern is welfare? How would you compare Janet Reno's abuse of power with anything done by John Ashcroft?

Everyone votes for candidates who seem to share their values. Some of those values stem from one's religion. You can't separate those facts.

Would I vote for a Muslim who shared my values? Yes. Would I vote for a Christian, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist who shared my values? Yes.

But, my assessment of Mr. Obama is that he is an inexperienced, stuffed shirt with questionable ethics and poor judgment. He gives a great speech and is adept at PR, but those are qualifications for a press secretary, not a president.

I will cast my vote for McCain, as I've voted for almost every candidate I've voted for since 1972, because I feel he is the lesser of two evils.

Unfortunately, with only one exception, I've never felt that any presidential candidate who's made it past the primaries was the best person for the job.

But your inferences show you for the charlatan you are.

THE REASON THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ? ISN'T THE REASON PEOPLE CAME TO THIS COUNTRY WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE DENIED TO WORSHIP GOD?

WHAT IS THE SAYING ABOUT "GOD AND COUNTRY"

AND I CANNOT , REASONABLY, ACCEPT ANOTHER'S DEITY AS MY GOD

SO THE PERSON I VOTE FOR BETTER BE FOR MY GOD AND MY COUNTRY !!

AND I'M NOT VOTING FOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, THE ARAB KENYAN ISLAM MUSLIM THAT THINKS WE HAVE 57 STATES.....

IT'S ISLAM THAT HAS 57 STATES !

GO SARAH !

MyWorld,
are you for real? Not even Gov. Palin is asking you to accept her belief as your own. I think you are a troll. If not, you have my prayers.

THE REASON THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ? ISN'T THE REASON PEOPLE CAME TO THIS COUNTRY WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE DENIED TO WORSHIP GOD?

WHAT IS THE SAYING ABOUT "GOD AND COUNTRY"

AND I CANNOT , REASONABLY, ACCEPT ANOTHER'S DEITY AS MY GOD

SO THE PERSON I VOTE FOR BETTER BE FOR MY GOD AND MY COUNTRY !!

AND I'M NOT VOTING FOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, THE ARAB KENYAN ISLAM MUSLIM THAT THINKS WE HAVE 57 STATES.....

IT'S ISLAM THAT HAS 57 STATES !

GO SARAH !

There is never a religious reason -- because the way politicians define religion has more to do with sociological identity groups than with faith or morals.

'-- For every fundamentalist and bigot who believes the smear that Obama is a Muslim, two or three new voters have registered to negate that vote.'

While I agree with Deepak's perspective that foisting one's religious convictions onto others' political motivations is unacceptable, the above statement struck me as the wrong way to show there is evidence a large number of people are rejecting this approach. Without qualifying the statement that it is seen as a 'smear' to say Obama is a Muslim, I understood from this that Deepak might agree that being a Muslim in fact carries a negative connotation. I respect Deepak's work and hope this is not his true belief.

"It wouldn't make me happy to know that a Catholic friend voted for someone solely because he was a Catholic, or that a Jewish friend voted for someone solely because he took a hawkish stand pro Israel, but that's their right. No public discussion is required."

Of course, on both, yet so many Hindus are voting for the candidate they perceive to be most anti-Muslim with a particular negative interest in guess what country? Of course, that is the Hindus' right. I'm not happy that they are contributing to the explosion of Pakistan and that it will ultimately backfire on the Hindus and the rest of us, but that's the Hindus' right.

Et moi? I would love it if all the "believers" and their imaginary friends settled together on one of the other habitable planets. There must be one.... Somewhere.

Argh! I wrote: "The matter of conscience before one's God (or lack thereof, just to include my Atheist friends) comes into play."

Only upon re-reading this some hours later do I realize that it sounds as though Atheists are without consciences! [sound of slap to own face] What I MEANT to infer was that for Atheists, their vote is a matter of conscience no less than those who vote as an extension of belief in God (or gods). And I hope that makes sense.

sparrow4 : "Atheists and agnostics believe in justice and good because it goes to quality of life."

This is their faith.

"Isn't this a religious belief in that we attribute it to "natural" law and "God given" rights."

It doesn't have to be. Atheists and agnostics believe in justice and good because it goes to quality of life. You don't have to believe in G-d to understand the Love thy Neighbor and Do unto others is good sense in any society. And that's from an anthropological standpoint as well.

Mr. Chopra,

Thank you for your thoughts. I'm one of those fairly rare Evangelical Christians who is voting for Obama. I feel, however, that you may need to define your words more carefully.

For instance, you say "There never will be, and never should be, a religious reason to pick one candidate over another." Yet for anyone who does believe, whether it be in Christ (as I do) or in the teachings of the Prophet Muhammed (as Muslims do) or... and so on... doesn't our belief in fact become the "reason" for not only our politics but everything else as well?

I suspect you mean something different than what you said. As an Evangelical who often votes Democratic, I've regularly been told that "no Christian can vote for Obama!" And then I'm told why, whether the reason is abortion or gay unions or whatever. Now if you mean that Christians should never say "You cannot be a Christian and vote for Candidate X," I wholeheartedly agree. The matter of conscience before one's God (or lack thereof, just to include my Atheist friends) comes into play.

But that isn't the same as saying "there... never should be a religious reason for picking one candidate over another." The above example is about someone claiming religious authority over another person, and not about religious belief and/or exercise of that belief. I have to say that I am voting for Barack Obama (actually, I did vote already, early) because of, and not aside from, my belief in Jesus Christ. I am not voting as I am due to being brow-beaten by some religious authority or pundit. But I am voting because -- and note the irony -- my Lord has been defamed, maligned, and virtually crucified again by those in the Religious/Christian/Evangelical Right who see themselves as authorities and America as their theological weapon to wreak their will upon the world.

So, I suggest you reconsider your wording and perhaps even your logic. Of course we vote because of our religious convictions, and the reasons we vote can be rooted in nothing more important than our beliefs about God and, through God, our fellow human beings. My faith says that human beings are created in God's Image, and that loving specific ones I encounter (literally, "my neighbor") is part of the summing up of all religious law.

No, no. DO vote for religious reasons. Please. Prayerfully, carefully and thoughtfully before God, vote your convictions. Just don't assault your neighbor for voting hers or his.

dbeins : "intelligentsia arrogance...never ceases to amaze me."

Likewise.

sparrow4 : "we have innate beliefs in justice and equality"

Isn't this a religious belief in that we attribute it to "natural" law and "God given" rights. This is exactly why I see religion as being essential to politics and government. Some churches may attempt to claim it as their own but such claims would be absurd. Everyone feels these things.

Deepak, as always you are brilliant.

Mr. Chopra you show a great deal of arrogance when you tell someone why they should vote or what criteria they should use when voting. If someone feels that the murder of 1.2 million babies a year is reason to or not to vote for someone, than far be it from you tell them otherwise.
BTW, what is wrong with "voting their faith"? You use your secular, liberal, new age views to guide your voting. Why shouldn't someone use peace, understanding, and love as a guide to picking a good leader? Would you feel better if the person was using the Bhagavad Gita as a guide to voting?
The intelligentsia arrogance of the left never ceases to amaze me.

Comments from: manixthoughts@blogspot.com

Agree or not, religion, caste, sex & race will play a major role in the democratic elections irrespective of the constitution as long as voters believe that these fundamentals are within their "inner feelings". This will not change. Human feelings are more important than any written documents.

Comments from: manixthoughts@blogspot.com

Agree or not, religion, caste, sex & race will play a major role in the democratic elections irrespective of the constitution as long as voters believe that these fundamentals are within their "inner feelings". This will not change. Human feelings are more important than any written documents.

BMORRIS244 writes: "I believe God is against abortion, and since Roe defends a sinful practice, I believe God would be against it as well."
It is natural to vote based on our beliefs, feelings, conditioning, loves, hates. We vote for what we believe in. Yet it is odd to believe in something that offers no real tangible validation for it's supposed position. How do you know what God is, much less what that entity is against or for, except for reading historical writings that are hued with a mystical aura of divinity for some centuries. I do not know what God wants by any stretch, and I have been a seeker of God and spirituality since being a kid.
What I ASSUME would make God happy, at this point in my life, is that WE live TRUTHFULLY to the Spirit or Soul that we are at our core. If you believe truthfully, or by conditioning, that abortion is "sinful", that will affect your vote. If that is the most important issue for you, how a candidate stands on abortion issues, God help you. There are, to my set of conditionings, much more pressing issues than Roe.
"I support God and have the backbone to act on my faith".
I am not a believer that God needs my support, assuming that God is anything of the Creator of all things that we assign Him to be. I may need Gods support, since I am an idiot spiritually. But I am not such an idiot as to believe that the Unknowable I Know. Arrogance is that which assumes to know what the Unknowable wants.
You may call me arrogant if you like for my presumptions.

I understand your point on the "God is on our side" argument. The "God sends homosexuals to hel" is far from mainstream religious teaching in the Catholic faith, at the least, and is very rarely preached (far less frequently than the Rev. Wright "God damn America" "Don't give jobs to white people" mantras) However, this is not what it seems. This is akin to the priest's "God will provide," or "God's will be done" when he comes up short a few dollars, or is stuck in traffic.
I don't agree with public leader like Bush saying it is God's will that we make certain political decisions. However, a "God bless America", a "One nation, under God," and a "God bless you all" in speeches should be encouraged.
On the other hand, how could you think you are right on any big decision if you don't think it is God's will, or what God would do?
I believe God is against abortion, and since Roe defends a sinful practice, I believe God would be against it as well. The practice is not/should not be "God supports me," rather, "I support God and have the backbone to act on my faith".

"Younger evangelicals have shifted away from hard-line social values, turning toward real-life issues like global warming."

In other words, God and faith, stay out of my life.
Obama, 'healing fracture lines?' The most liberal Senator of 2007, with only two full years in office? Having voted 99% of the time with the farthest left portion of his party? "Undo bitter partisanship" indeed.

kengelhart- Maye someday we will, but wouldn't it still be sad that we would want democracy for scientific - or religious- reasons, and not because we have innate beliefs in justice and equality for everyone? Anne frank wrote "It's really a wonder that I haven't dropped all my ideals, because they seem so absurd and impossible to carry out. Yet I keep them, because in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart. "

I believe this and I think everyone who is voting for Obama somewhere deep inside believes it too.

sparrow4 : "Democracy was set up, in this country at least, to protect the rights of everyone, so that one group could not dominate and then remove the rights of another."

You are right about this. None of the western churches would relinquish their right to dominate. That is why we have to separate church from state. However, the power of democracy is accepted as a matter of modern faith by many countries. Maybe someday we will have "scientific" evidence why democracy has to be the basis for government, but we do not have it yet.

"Fundamentally, we believe that democratic government SHOULD be a natural law among people. Isn't a natural law what we believe is intended by God, or divine authority?"

I can't tell what exactly it is you're trying to say. But religion is not reason. It is faith. Democracy is not religion, it is a system of government. People make the mistake of defining democracy but one very basic point- majority rules. Except that really isn't democracy. And you can't define democracy by one talking point. because democracy also defines itself as treating people equally and fairly under the law. (In an ideal world at least).

Democracy was set up, in this country at least, to protect the rights of everyone, so that one group could not dominate and then remove the rights of another. This is as far from the agenda of the religious right as you can possibly get. And while the idea of good government and life in general is based on "love thy neighbor" good people don't need a fear of G-d to believe that this is the best way to make life as joyous and productive for as many as possible.

The religious right is not about living according to the precepts of G-d, it's about living according to the interpretation of men who want power. I'll vote for the life of my country and my community, not my religion. And my vote won't be McCain/Palin for exactly that reason.

I must admit that my religious instinct admonished me for not voting for Gloria La Riva for POTUS b/c I was so hell-bent on getting a brother into the White House; so having cast my vote for Barack, I now hope beyond all measure he not only bites the hands of the banksters and corporations who have given the democratic party mass cash, but that he declares 2009 the year of Jubilee!

Yeah baby!

Spiritual anarchists unite!

:) Peace

As I have said before, with few people listening, religion is the basis for reason. What is not the basis for reason is the obsolete teachings of some church. Reason needs to separate itself from specific churches and deal with what is beneficial to all. This is fundamentally a religious matter. The dominant religion today is democratic government guided by science. If you do not accept this modern belief it is probably because some church is influencing you to believe differently. Churches that do not subscribe to evolving religion will atrophy.

Don't we take the value of consent of the governed on faith? In other words, what is our scientific evidence that this is the best form of government? We do have this evidence to some extent, but it tells us that no church can be trusted to run our government. The rest of the conclusion we accept on a complicated foundation of facts and faith. Fundamentally, we believe that democratic government SHOULD be a natural law among people. Isn't a natural law what we believe is intended by God, or divine authority?

Our constitution was founded on separation of church and state. What is the reason these past few years they are being touted as the righteous cause? Is there so much corruption going on, they have to ask God for forgiveness for all their evil deeds done and intended. In this day and age we couldn't have a tea party, too expensive, not environmentally safe for the harbor, give coffee a fair chance. So tired of what is politically correct. This is progress? I question that statement.

In a recent Pew Forum Todd Gitlin said:

"Remember that America was defined from the start as the fruit of an ideology...So the question of what holds the nation together, of who belongs here, of what this stands for, is a matter open to debate. America is a way of life, in other words of culture."

Panelists might have provided more help to readers if they had devoted some time to analyzing Senator Obama's address to Planned Parenthood in which he not only commited himself Roe vs. Wade without compromise, but also to writing a "new social contract."

These are cultural objectives which will affect most of us and in which we might all have a legitimate interest.

This is one Genii that cannot be stuffed back into the Bottle! The ignorant hypocrisy of Christian Fundamentalism exposes the basic lies and superstition of all Christianity. Recent knowledge and new, more accurate, translations of "original" documents used to create the Bible have exposed basic "truth" and doctrine errors and serious misconceptions of even the core basis for Christian "faith"; making the “virgin” birth into just one more teenage pregnancy, Joseph into a lecherous merchant, and resurrection an average rant of Jewish hysteria . A "big Tent" view of Christianity includes Catholics with Bibles that have 6 additional books, Mormonism with the lost books of the lost tribe of Israel found on disappearing gold plates written in English no doubt along with a recipe for magic underwear, and Protestant sects from Young Earth morons to Demon Exorcists, Witch Doctors, New Age Rock Stars, Motivational Capitalists, and worse! With thousands of versions, translations, and interpretations of the "Bible"; claiming any version as infallible, literal truth is an exercise in mass hypnosis at best; and more likely grounds for conviction of the hucksters and con men and women racketeering as they peddle such nonsense.
Declaring such pedagogical crap as Conservative is an insult and travesty!

Amen.

Inviting anyone who might be concerned to speak out on behalf of suffering Christians in India:

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2365