In many conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist churches, congregants are often urged to vote for candidates that embody family, moral, traditional, or biblical values. However, the issue arises when examining the alignment of these candidates with broader principles that extend beyond just a select few values. While supporting family and biblical values is commendable, there’s substantial debate concerning the efficacy of voting within the American political system. The author emphasizes that he refrains from voting, having presented various reasons for this stance elsewhere. The discourse then shifts to the inherent limitations of focusing solely on candidates’ social stances, particularly when political choices are often reduced to a binary: typically between Democratic and Republican candidates.
In general elections, conservative voters are frequently presented with a dilemma where the ultimate choice tends to revolve around the Republican candidate, largely due to the influence of their churches and social networks. Although church leaders may avoid explicitly instructing their congregants to vote Republican, their messaging effectively nudges followers toward that direction, often utilizing voter guides that depict Democratic candidates unfavorably while portraying Republicans in a better light. In primary elections, the expectation is clear: conservative voters must choose the Republican candidate who best represents biblical values, leading to narrow definitions of what these values entail.
The prevailing discourse around ‘biblical values’ tends to prioritize certain contentious issues, notably opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, and the transgender agenda. These issues overshadow critical values like honesty, generosity, and compassion. While the author opposes abortion and has distinct viewpoints on issues like marijuana legalization, he asserts that these do not encompass the entirety of biblical principles. Instead, there is a call for broader consideration that includes candidates’ positions on economic freedom, individual liberties, and government restrictions, which often go unacknowledged in mainstream discussions within these religious circles.
Specific Republican candidates, often seen as champions of biblical values, may exhibit a troubling indifference to issues of peace and personal freedoms. For instance, they might support interventionist foreign policies and increased military presence globally, actions that conflict with pacifist biblical teachings. Furthermore, such candidates may endorse legislation that undermines personal freedoms through anti-discrimination laws and punitive drug policies. This inconsistency raises questions about the integrity of their claims to uphold biblical values, leading to a disconnect between professed beliefs and actual policy positions adopted by these candidates.
Moreover, the author critiques the tendency of these candidates to overlook critical humanitarian issues, such as the vast welfare state or foreign aid allocations that primarily benefit certain groups, rather than addressing inherent societal needs. There appears to be a disconnect when candidates position themselves as protectors of Second Amendment rights while simultaneously supporting federal gun control measures. This contradiction illustrates a broader failure to adhere to an overarching set of principles that respect and promote freedom for all individuals, regardless of their social perspectives.
In conclusion, the author posits an alternative choice. He expresses a willingness to support candidates who, despite differing social ethics—such as being pro-choice or identifying as queer—strongly advocate for liberty, economic freedom, and a less interventionist government. This choice underscores a desire for governance more reflective of comprehensive biblical values, advocating for a society characterized by mutual respect and minimal coercion, rather than being confined to polarizing social issues that often define political discourse. Ultimately, the conversation challenges the perception of how biblical values are formulated and applied within the context of American politics, calling for deeper reflections on the moral responsibilities of both voters and candidates.