Legal Does Not Translate into “Should”

In this election cycle,  we are now faced with issues and polices and yes, even political candidates that we have to choose to give them authority over us.  The question we now have to ask ourselves is not so much a question of legality as it is a question of ethics.  The choice of whether to affirm a vote on an issue or a candidate that is best for our nation because we can or because that affirmation that is best for our nation because we should.   Consider this:

  •   In California, “Medical” marijuana dispensaries are opening up all over the state (due to the passage of Proposition 215 several years ago).  This gives the State additional revenue since they squandered the revenue we gave them through taxes (payroll, gas, etc).
  • In Tennessee, there are plans to build 5 to 6 “mega-mosques”  This will generate a sizeable amount of revenue in the way of property tax for the State. However, the building of these mosques will be a continual eyesore in the community since the design will be completely out of step with natural landscape as well as the will of the people who have lived there for generations. 
  • In Michigan and New Jersey the legal system in both states are slowly recognizing Sharia Law practices in the way of curbing free speech rights on Christian citizens (Michigan) and in allowing banks to underwrite interest-free home loans to Muslim applicants (New Jersey).

All three examples are exercises in the Democratic Process.  At no time did anyone in or outside the Legislative Body of the respective states “crash the gates” and had laws forcibly enacted against the will of the members of the State Houses.   However, all three are examples of what we could do but not what we should do.  These examples come down to one thing:  Ethics.

While it is true that you can’t “legislate” morality, you can choose what kind of morality you send to your respective State House or even the U.S. Capitol.  For the type of character you will  send to the governing body will reflect the type of policy they put forth and you will now be forced to adhere to it.  In short, you will be liberated or cast into bondage based on the worldview that you voted for.

I heard it said many times, “It doesn’t matter what side you pick, they (political candidates) are all the same”.  Their party affiliation, perhaps.  But certainly not their worldviews.  I have personally seen candidates that share a party affiliation, but their worldviews are radically different. Chuck De Vore is recent example of a candidate with a Biblical worldview that should of but did not win the party primary, therefore his name will not appear on the November ballot.  

This is a typical example of the type of lackidazical attitude in the Church Body to not seek out candidates or issues that reflect or at least support a Biblical worldview.  So when “the devil” gets into political office or when an state law/local ordinance is passed, why does the Church cry “foul” after the fact?  As the saying goes medically, it is true politically:  “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. 

Let’s not leave the patient (America) on the operating “table” to die while we are wringing our hands wondering what to do.  Let’s “scrub up” (prayer AND action) get to work, save the “patient” and use Scripture to “rehabilitate” her back to her healthy self.  The way the Founders intended her to live.  The alternative is to let her die on the table, take her cold, dead body to the morgue of history, and let the future medical examiners of history perform the “autopsy” of what was America’s cause of death.


When they open up the ”Body” of  America, will they find you as the root cause?

Legal Does Not Translate into “Should”