Of Whether a follower of God and believer in the teachings, resurrection and reconciliation of man with God through Jesus Christ-should vote. [Part 1]

With a little under two weeks until the general election, some Christians are asking "Who should we vote for?" and "How should we vote?" And they naturally turn their ears to any number of the many loud voices telling them what to do (or maybe they've been listening all along).

I would like to add my voice to the deafening roar of confusion, in hope that:
If in fact, by the time I finish writing this and have firmly decided upon a decision, I hope to promote whatever truth it might contain therein.
1) I might start a discussion
2) and that I might realize the truth of what Jesus would have me do, specifically in matters of democratic elections

What Voting Means
What does one's vote mean? When one votes for a candidate or proposition, what is one effectively doing?
Generally, a vote can be understood as a unit, a measurement, of confidence.
When one votes two things happens. That person is basically saying that:
1) They want A Candidate/Proposition
2) They do not want B/C/D Candidate/Proposition
There is both an affirmation and a denouncing or denial that is included in a vote.

Free Will
Voting in a democratic government is essentially the peaceful pitting of wills. The will behind one vote, is the denial of a will behind a competing will, and in a democratic government--a vote has exponential consequences on how free will is both looked upon and treated.
For example.
If a person votes in favor Libertarian views, in theory that person is voting for the protection of one's right to one's own goods and services. They are also, in theory, voting against those who would want everyone to share in responsibility for each other.
If a person votes in favor of Socialistic views, in theory that person is voting for the idea that the government should facilitate helping each other. They are also, in theory, voting against those believe that they have an exclusive right to their own time, work, possessions.
A vote for a certain view, is a vote against another view. It is a peaceful enforcement of a view upon another person.
Whichever proposition, or candidate wins--they will enforce the views outlaid before those voted, on those who voted (and more).

Government versus God

All types of Government, except for Anarchy-which dictates that no one should rule over another, and Theocracy--where God is sovereign, are by their nature anti-God.
However Anarchy is unachievable because humans are incapable of living independent of society,
and a Theocracy cannot be established by humans.
The United States is a Democratic Republic, which means that its citizens have the power to elect their representatives and to decide how they are governed (among many, many other things).
It rule by the people, instead of God. It is a form of rule that denies the authority of God over humans in favor of human's rule over themselves.

Every time an American votes, they are asking/demanding/saying that the government of the United States should change.
Every vote is a negation, or canceling out of another person's vote representing a different view/belief.
Or it is an approval in conjunction with other same votes.
Because votes are measured in positive integers, and because there are no fractions, a vote for a candidate is seen as an affirmation of the person as a whole, right and wrong, good and evil. A vote for proposition is seen in whole as an affirmation of both the positive and negative repercussions of that vote.

Jesus

Matthew 4:8-10
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

Jesus recognized that even He, who was perfect, should be humble and should not rule the world.
Not only was it not His time to rule the world (though if there was any time, it could have been then), Jesus [I will presume] knew that:
1) He did not have the right to silence counter wills, to force people to believe as he did
2) God is sovereign over all, regardless of who is in office, regardless of laws, He reigns and passes over all governments, decisions and votes. A vote for a candidate or proposition, places the voter in the position of a judge (instead of having God as the judge), and being imperfect we make imperfect decisions.

But then, some Christians may assert that they know how God would vote.

American Christians

John 19:15
"Shall I crucify your king?" Pilate asked.
"We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answered.

To often those who call themselves Christians have said these very words through their actions. They have used Ceaser (government) to further their own gain, or they have mistaken the government's authority as more important than God's reign.
One example of this is when Christian groups, churches, organizations and leaders insist that God's reign is not triumphant unless it is supreme and manifest in government.

These actions stem from the fallacious belief that one may understand God's will enough to know how He would vote.
This belief is solid hubris.

Jesus Himself refused to take government command of a government, how then can American Christian claim to know how the government should be governed. Can humans understand the full range of consequences of a vote?
-Besides the fact that Jesus would not vote solely on principal of not believing in forcing people to live a certain way-
-He would not have voted because He could never endorse the full range of negative attributes and consequences that naturally come with every candidate and proposition.
-He would understand that by voting, He would be judging Human government--which would make the government the judge of God's law.
-He would understand that any wrong or evil that resulted from endorsing a certain candidate/proposition, would be a reflection upon himself, and upon God.

Based upon these four reasons why Jesus would not vote, Christian Americans too, should not vote.

NationStates 2 Game

NationStates 2 is an online based text game that allows a person to be the ruler of a country of their creation. In addition to being able to create alliances and trade agreements with other active players, one can also participate in online forums to discuss their states etc. The best part however is that every day the player is presented with two pieces of legislation and is able to choose between two to four different predetermined options.

Today, my nation (called Koeur) was presented with two pieces of legislation. One had to do with education while the other had to do with sports. I will start with what I consider the more trivial piece.

"No Loser Left Behind"
Professor Boris Palva, renowned behavioral scientist, has released data which he claims proves that competitive sports are harmful.

1) "These sports damage the self-confidence of citizens who lack the attributes required to compete successfully," argues the professor. "We can develop sports without such negative effects if we apply a scientific approach to the problem."


2) "Sport is only a problem if you lose," yells Harry Maguire. "Train our kids harder and we'll have a nation to be proud of!"


3) "The most efficient solution is to make sure that we produce winners," argues Doctor Frank Shelley. "Let me begin a program of eugenics and genetic alteration which will one day make Koeur the envy of every other nation."


In addition to the choices presented above, there is also an option to "Dismiss the issue" if you, the ruler, decides that they don't even want to deal with it. In my case, I chose to dismiss this issue not because I didn't want to deal with it but because I didn't think that it was something that should be dealt by the government of my state (who happens to be me). The state should not be advocating neither for or against recreational activity of it's citizens. If the citizens should approach the government, demanding advocacy for one way or another, they should be rebuffed and told to that government has neither the authority or concern for such matters. Even if a sport was created that involved serious persecution, injury or destruction of property--even then, the perpetrators would be breaking previously founded laws and would be accordingly tried for their crimes.

The second piece of legislation follows:

"Level the Playing Field"
"The entry demands for getting into higher education in Koeur are simply too much of a hurdle for our schoolchildren," writes Agnes Leach, concerned mother of nine, in The Oleander

1) "Education for all, regardless of so-called ability, should be the goal of this government," argues Harry P. Houtingdon-Swit, leader of the Koeur Initiative for Equality. "I had the benefit of a liberal education which allowed me to blossom and bloom without worrying about practical matters. Every citizen of Koeur should be given such an opportunity to find their true calling even if they do take a little longer to start working."

2) "Strict division of our children into predetermined areas of expertise is what we need," says Professor Hermingard Scrounch. "It is trivial for us to discover the innate predispositions of a child and make the system run efficiently. Children will be able to develop their skills without distraction from disciplines for which they have no aptitiude."

3) "Abolish higher education!" yells the leader of the underground Neo-Socialist Workers Party at a rally in the center of the capitol. "We don't need stuffy intellectuals to tell us how to live. Equality for all!"


Making a decision for this legislation was admittedly a bit trickier. I was stuck between dismissing this issue and choosing option 1. Option 2 and Option 3 are both unnecessary and borderline arbitrary dictatorial logic, not to mention assuredly horrendous results. While Option 1 restricts some freedom of Koeur's citizens by creating an atmosphere where all jobs necessitate some kind of education, it does invest in the future economy, health and well being. Option 1 is also very unclear and vague about what "Education for all" exactly means and entails. Does it mean drastically raising taxes and creating nationalized schools, or does it mean that the government is in favor of education and might increase funding for libraries and promotes education throughout it's branches and departments? All of this tempted me to once again dismiss the issue, to say that it shouldn't be the role of government to vaguely promote teaching of knowledge, which, again put me in a conundrum.

Is it the role of government to guard and promote education? Or is that not the role of educational institutions and private schools? Is it not dangerous to have government control or promotion of education? Is there not a likelihood for certain ideas and knowledge to be promoted and others ignored? Won't there be a likelihood, or at least temptation of emergence of propaganda being taught in state schools? Surely it is dangerous to put the governing in charge of promotion of knowledge for it poses a threat to the freedom of thought itself.

Unfortunately, the NationStates 2 game is not nearly as in depth, so I would apply my concerns only if said legislation piece were real. I did chose Option 1, despite my principals, because the game depends on practicality rather than ideology (not unlike real life--some would argue).