Chas­ing the evan­gel­i­cal vot­ing block

The Covington News - - Religion -

Watch­ing the “Su­per-Tues­day” re­turns come in, I heard a broad­caster com­ment that the black vote had not all gone to Obama; nor had all the women voted for Clin­ton. The com­men­ta­tor sounded pleased, as if to say, see, th­ese two groups can think for them­selves. I would like to add a P.S. to this, “ and not all the evan­gel­i­cals voted for Huck­abee.” Evan­gel­i­cals (de­fined by the Mer­riam Web­ster On­line Dic­tionary, as “ of re­lat­ing to, or be­ing in agree­ment with the Chris­ten gospel es­pe­cially as it is pre­sented in the four Gospels”) can also think for them­selves.

Yes, of course, life is a pow­er­ful is­sue. Evan­gel­i­cals see be­ing pro- life as an af­fir­ma­tion of the unique value of ev­ery hu­man soul. But be­ing pro-life also means that evan­gel­i­cals seek to avoid, limit the scope of, and the du­ra­tion of, war. The WWJD ques­tion leads evan­gel­i­cals to ask, how could war be avoided? What would dis­arm the ter­ror­ists? Evan­gel­i­cals would like to see the US seek vig­or­ously for al­ter­na­tive fu­els and tech­nolo­gies.

An es­ti­mated 30 mil­lion chil­dren starved to death last year. Evan­gel­i­cals would like to see a pres­i­dent build­ing a coali­tion among the in­dus­tri­al­ized na­tions of the world to end child­hood star­va­tion.

Evan­gel­i­cals are in­ter­ested in both the se­cu­rity of the na­tional borders and hos­pi­tal­ity to non cit­i­zens liv­ing within our borders.

Evan­gel­i­cals rec­og­nize that one of the worst un­fore­seen con­se­quences of the war in Iraq has been the per­se­cu­tion of the Chris­tians in Iraq.

Evan­gel­i­cals be­lieve that one of the key func­tions of gov­ern­ment is to pro­vide a stable cur­rency. Print­ing money for ever in­creas­ing bud­get deficits re­sults in the de­valu­ing of the cur­rency — mak­ing goods and ser­vices cost more. While the wealthy can sim­ply change their in­vest­ment port­fo­lio; the poor sim­ply have to pay more for the same gal­lon of milk. Evan­gel­i­cals

be­lieve in a bal­anced bud­get is good for our na­tion, and that when bud­gets are not bal­anced, then Congress should not be al­lowed to vote it­self an­other pay raise.

Evan­gel­i­cals are not against tech­nol­ogy, but we be­lieve that ev­ery new tech­nol­ogy just pro­vides a new way for Satan to at­tack. Evan­gel­i­cals see a le­git­i­mate role of the gov­ern­ment polic­ing so­ci­ety for the pub­lic good. The US ought to be able to elim­i­nate in­ter­net pornog­ra­phy, in­ter­net gam­bling and, for good mea­sure, the gov­ern­ment ought to end tele­mar­ket­ing to private res­i­dences.

Evan­gel­i­cals be­lieve that there ought to be sys­tems in place for the poor to be able to sur­vive. But, like Ruth in the Bi­ble, th­ese sys­tems ought to call for in­di­vid­ual re­spon­si­bil­ity. Evan­gel­i­cals be­lieve …. Well I could go on. But re­ally, th­ese are sim­ply my be­liefs. And, as I men­tioned, evan­gel­i­cals can think for them­selves. But to the ques­tion, “Whose side are the evan­gel­i­cals on?” The char­ac­ter “Tree­beard” from J. R. Tolkien’s novel “ The Lord of the Rings” gives the best an­swer. Pip­pin asks him, “Whose side are you on? And Tree­beard replied, ( imag­ine a re­ally deep, res­onate voice) “Side? I am on no­body’s side. Be­cause no­body is on my side, lit­tle Orc. No­body cares for the woods any­more.”

John Donaldson

Colum­nist

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.