Christian philosopher Doug Groothuis explains why conservatives should support Romney
From Patheos,: a post: from evangelical Christian philosopher Dr. Douglas Groothuis of Denver Seminary.
Many conservatives (Christian or otherwise), me included, are disappointed that Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate for President. They lament that a more principled conservative (such as Michele Bachmann, or, to a lesser degree, Rick Santorum) was not selected. Perhaps they stand for the libertarian principles of Ron Paul. Whatever the case, many will be tempted to not vote at all or to cast a protest vote. This is a deep mistake, based on faulty ideas about politics and the meaning of a political vote. In this short essay, I will labor to convince fellow conservatives, whether Christians or not, to support and vote for Mitt Romney for President. I have waited to endorse Romney until all the other competitors have been eliminated. I do not expect to convert political liberals to this cause, which would require much more argumentation.
His list of points are:
- we have to be realistic about the alternatives
- protest votes are wasted votes
- the differences between Democrats and Republicans are HUGE
- Romney is far more preferable to the alternative
Click through to: read the rest. I highly recommend this post.
Here’s just a fragment I liked because it touches on religious liberty, which is my core concern:
Third, the essential principles between the two parties, however each candidate may vary from them, are sharply divided. Democrats support a larger government and heavier taxation and regulation. They view the Constitution as a wax nose they twist any way they want (progressivism), pit corporations and “the wealthy” against “the common man” (call it class warfare, a holdover from Marxism), and support a weakened national defense (the only area of the federal government Obama is trying to cut). They do not support religious liberty, and they are pro-abortion with a vengeance.: Under ObamaCare, every American would be subsidizing the killing of innocent human beings with their own tax dollars. Ponder that, for God’s sake. It denies the First Amendment (by requiring many religious people to violate their religious principles) and sets a dangerous precedent for state intrusion into matters of religious conscience. Further, the Democratic party in general, and now Obama very pointedly, do not respect heterosexual monogamy as the norm. They favor same-sex marriage, which is not marriage at all.
Republicans support smaller government, lighter taxation and regulation, a higher view of the Constitution as a body of objective truths to be applied rightly today, and the opportunities allowed by a basically free market. They advocate a strong national defense (or “Peace through strength,” in Reagan’s formulation) and are much more pro-life.: This means a Republican president is far more likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who honor the Constitution and oppose: Roe v. Wade; to appoint dozens of federal judges with great influence, all of whom are likely to have a high and proper view of the Constitution; and to use executive orders (whether or not they are constitutional; they probably are not) in the pro-life cause, such as refusing to give foreign aid in support of abortions abroad and refusing to fund abortions in the military. While there are exceptions, Republicans support the historical and traditional family. While they grant all citizens the rights enumerated in the Constitution, they do not support same-sex marriage.
Its very hard for me to post a link to this endorsement, but I feel that Dr. Groothuis should be heeded because of his longstanding support for Michele Bachmann, and then later Rick Santorum, after Michele dropped out. These two candidates are the same ones that I supported as the most consistent conservatives, in the Republican primary. I think his post is realistic, and explains the real alternatives facing conservatives.
Well, there’s nothing truly shocking in that knowledge, I’m sure most of us have been prescient enough to understand that
In a story by Jay Root for the Associated Press, the news wire service tries to tar the entire Tea