Why Christians Should Not Vote for an Orthodox Democrat

I take it as uncontroversial that Christians, due to the biblical injunction to “love your neighbor as yourself,” must work toward the establishment of justice for every human being, especially those in their own country. Rom. 13 makes clear that God has established governments for the purpose of punishing the wicked and protecting the innocent. Assuming that a Christian votes, he must vote for those who will rule justly, not showing partiality, but protecting all the innocent. Granted, in a fallen world we will never find a candidate or party that promotes justice in all situations, but we must choose those who come closest to the ideal. That we may only be able to choose the lesser of two evils does not somehow excuse us to vote for the greater of two evils.

It’s often said that God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and that’s certainly true. Yet this does not mean that both parties are morally equal. I’m certain everyone will agree that it would be unacceptable for a follower of Christ to vote for, say, a white supremacist who planned to reestablish Jim Crow laws. Yet while our society has thankfully moved to condemn racism, there are other areas where it remains morally blind. First and foremost among these is abortion, an evil that, since it was unfettered by Roe v. Wade some 35 years ago, has claimed the lives of over 40 million human beings–beautiful babies made in the very image of God. Indeed, the only other injustice in our nation’s history that can even begin to compare with this in its scope is slavery, which rightfully horrifies us.

Unfortunately, due to the horrendous manner in which the Supreme Court mangled both justice and the Constitution in Roe v. Wade (which makes abortion legal for anyone at any time for any reason), pro-lifers are largely unable to pass even minor abortion restrictions. This essentially means there are no peaceful means of change available save a constitutional amendment (impossible in the current political environment) or changing the composition of the Supreme Court. There is a marked difference when it comes to the parties’ positions here. The official Democratic Party Platform calls for the upholding of Roe v. Wade and the preservation of abortion on demand (translation: over 1 million babies slaughtered every year). By way of contrast, the Republican Party Platform calls for judges who faithfully interpret the Constitution and for the protection of unborn life (translation: hundreds of thousands of babies avoid execution). The difference is night and day.

Granted, the Republicans have at times been shaky on appointing firmly pro-life judges (O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, we’re looking at you), but they appear to be improving (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito). On the other hand, the Democrats have been as good as their word, appointing extremists who uphold the party’s orthodoxy (Ginsburg, Breyer). And this is ultimately why Christians ought to consider orthodox Democrats to be disqualified from the list of acceptable candidates: those in the Democratic mainstream will always fight against the protection of unborn human life.

Lest anyone think I exaggerate here, take the case of partial-birth abortion. In this procedure (for which revolting seems too weak an adjective), a baby is delivered so that all but its head is outside the birth canal. The abortionist then sticks scissors into the baby’s skull and proceeds to suck out its brains (illustrations here). The dead baby is then removed. The Supreme Court recently upheld a partial-birth abortion ban, which was supported by 70% of the American people. One might expect that the reaction to this among presidential candidates would be rejoicing at the end of such barbarism, and indeed the Republican candidates had just such a reaction.

Not so with the Democratic contenders. Every single one of them registered their dismay at the decision. Hillary Clinton called it “an erosion of constitutional rights.” John Edwards said he “could not disagree more strongly” with the decision. Barack Obama said that he “strongly disagree[d].” All of them expressed concern that further abortion restrictions might follow and reiterated their support for Supreme Court justices that will never allow any meaningful restrictions on abortion.

Frankly, this shows that these people do not have a single shred of decency when it comes to the unborn. Perhaps their consciences are truly so dulled that they do not realize that partial-birth abortion is an abomination. Or perhaps their lust for power and the support of the Democratic establishment makes them willing to suppress any pangs of conscience about abetting the slaughter of millions of innocent children. Regardless, these people would, if President, have the opportunity to appoint several Supreme Court justices (since several older liberal members would likely retire while a liberal was in power), ensuring the security of Roe for, at a minimum, another generation, and likely ensuring that at least another 20 million unborn babies would be sacrificed to the gods of “choice” and “women’s rights.”

There is no other moral issue in American life that is on the same order of magnitude. As John Piper so rightly says, there is no single issue which qualifies someone to hold office, but there are many single issues which disqualify someone. For all moral people, abortion ought to be the very first disqualifier for a politician. Anyone who will not help to overturn Roe v. Wade has blood on their hands, and no Christian can in good conscience support them. So I urge Christians, do not vote for anyone who will not help to overturn this travesty, and if all Democratic candidates fail this test, then vote otherwise. If you can stomach Republicans, vote for a pro-life one. If not, vote for an independent. But whatever you do, send a message that you will not be party to America’s modern day Molech worship.

Explore posts in the same categories: Abortion, Politics, Theology