elections

So how is this for a hypothetical situation:

In the 2008 primary elections, Hillary Clinton breezes to a victory while Rudy Guiliani scrapes by Fred Thompson...

In the general election 1) will you vote and 2) if so, who will you vote for?

Let the debate begin :-)

Spheres

I was at a church gathering last sunday night where we watched some of Focus on the Family's "The Truth Project" (which is really good by the way.) One of the things the person teaching did, was he had a graph which had several different colored spheres. One said "God", another said "Family" another said "Church" another said "Labor" etc. etc. His point was that we need to be careful not to confuse spheres...in other words, just b/c God says "Wives, submit to your husbands" in Ephesians (a command relevant to the sphere of family) or, in 1 Timothy, "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man", a command relevant to the sphere of Church, does not mean that man cannot work somewhere just because he has a woman supervising him, or whatever. (Which doesn't involve the sphere of family or church, but of labor.)

He then made a passing reference that in his study of Scripture, he hasn't seen any passage that would indicate that it is unbiblical for a woman to be in authority over a man in the area of labor or, incidentally, in politics. Obviously this is relevant to us now, since the thought of Hillary Clinton being president may soon become a reality.

Now, one could argue (which I'm not going to right now) that it would be unbiblical to vote for Hillary b/c of her stance on abortion or some other issue. However, my question is; is it unbiblical to vote for Hillary b/c she is a woman? This isn't a chauvinistic questions, I simply want to know if you all think it's biblical for a woman to be in authority of an entire nation.

Testing the waters?

I know some of you don't like it when I post about political matters, but oh well...

As I've said previously on my blog, Fred Thompson is my boy when it comes to the 2008 presidential election. He's the man. However, I don't know how I feel about the way he is raising money for the presidential race. Right now, he's officially using a "testing the waters" clause of the FEC, however, it seems clear that he is actually campaigning and will enter the race. He just hasn't made it official yet, because, quite frankly, there's no real reason to. Everyone is polling him and treating him as if he is already in the race. This allows him to not have to post the $$$ that he has raised, and where it came from, during this entire quarter, because he isn't "officially" a candidate. This doesn't seem fair to me, particularly to the other Republican candidates.

Am I being nitpicky?

Fred Thompson

So Fred Thompson is probably going to officially announce that he's running for president on July 4th. This is the best news related to the presidential race in a long time. Thompson describes himself as a Federalists, not a Republican. Basically this simply means that he believes we've gotten away from the orginal idea of what the federal government should look like. Now it spends money like banchee, gives money to the poor (church's job) controls tons of aspects of people's lives, is way too big and way too out of control. He's convervative, definitely more so then Guiliani and McCain. Basically he's the man. Two hilarious stories about him.

1) go to http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Fred+Thompson+Michael+Moore and click on the first video. This was Fred Thompson's response to Michael Moore challenging him to a debate about Health care. Thompson wrote an article about how bad Cuba's health care system is in the long run shortly after Michael Moore's documentary about how it was better then the US's health care. This is Thompson's response to Moore's challenge. It's a classic.

2) A female journalists for a Tennessee newspaper said that Thompson looked like Work from Star Trek (go to Google and click on the images link then type in Worf to see what he looks like.) Her comment was something to the effect of "why is he on TV all the time? Why do people think he looks good? He looks like Worf from Star Trek for crying out loud!" So Thompson mailed her a huge picture or Worf and signed it: "in the immortal words of Sawyer Brown: some girls don't like boys like me. Ah, but some girls do."

Anyone who's conservative, funny, a decent politician and especially quotes famous country songs at oppurtune times deserves to be president in my book.

Representing a Biblical Worldview

Another question for my faithful readers...what is wrong w/ the follow statements.

A republican governments responsibility (like America) is to, within the realm of practicality, represent the wants and beliefs of the majority (there are obviously certain inherent rights that they protect that wouldn't change even if the majority disagreed. Government wouldn't legalize murder if 51% decided it was cool.) Therefore, as Christians, our PRIORITY should be to, through witnessing and evangelizing, attempt to influence the people, the mob, for Christ. The governments would then HAVE to represent a biblical worldview. If they didn't, we simply would not reelect them. But my history professor, Thomas Reid, would be quick to point out that politicians will never not represent the majority. They can't afford to.


And yes I understand that I used a double negative in the second to last sentence, Doug. You don't have to list that fact as one of the problems with those statements :-).