Friday, Dec. 2, 2016    Login | Register        

For whom should I vote

David Epps's picture

In a few days, the citizens of the United States will elect a President. Either the incumbent will be re-elected or the challenger will take office in January.

It is not my place to tell people how to vote. It is my role, however, to articulate biblical morality and to stand firm on those issues that the Church throughout the ages has espoused. I am, in fact, to be a “defender of the faith.”

I am not a Republican, a Democrat, or a Libertarian although I have cast votes for all three in times past. On many issues there can be genuine disagreement.
While I support a strong military defense and support local law enforcement, I also realize that some authentic Christian believers can support, from their interpretation of scriptures, pacifism. I tend to support the “just war” theory but freely admit that some of the wars our nation has fought could not be classified thus.

I believe that if a person “doesn’t work neither should he eat” but I also recognize the need to care for the truly needy among us in a way that encourages them and preserves their dignity.

I think we are taxed too much but I also understand that Jesus said that we should pay taxes when required.

I oppose racism in all forms. I grew up in a segregated South and knew it was wrong even as a child. I also oppose “reverse racism.”

While I understand that unrestricted immigrations is problematic, I recognize that the Bible instructs believers to treat the “alien,” or “stranger,” with mercy, justice, and kindness.

I am a social, theological, and fiscal conservative but believe in equal opportunity, helping those who need it, and I believe in giving and in generosity. So, in the past I have voted for people who espoused so-called conservative causes, those who supported so-called liberal causes, and I have, in certain cases, expressed some Libertarian leanings.

However, I cannot and will not support a candidate or a party who advocates ending a child’s life and labeling such an atrocity as merely a matter of “choice.”
In the United States alone, since 1973, some 50 million — that’s 50,000,000 — young lives have been “legally,” but certainly not morally, terminated.
“Terminated” is such a sanitized term. So is “eliminated” or “disposed of” or “aborted.”

Six million Jews were “terminated,” “eliminated,” “disposed of,” or simply had their lives “aborted” in World War II by the Hitler government. But we don’t use those words — no, we say they were “murdered.”

It is morally repugnant to slaughter innocents whatever the reason. People and governments have done it for centuries for land, water, gold, timber, and a host of other reasons.

Children, who have yet to see their first light of day, are “eliminated” for no other reason than convenience.

Oh, I know that the issues of rape, incest, and the life of the mother are sometimes used as excuses but these cases are so rare as to be statistically insignificant.

I will vote for a pro-life Democrat and I will vote against a abortionist Republican. I will not vote for a pro-choice Democrat and I will vote for a pro-life Republican — or Libertarian, for that matter.

There were those white Southerners and white Northerners who turned a blind eye to slavery. There were God-fearing folks who approved the genocide of the Native Americans. There were German Christians who turned a blind eye to the Holocaust. History has judged them all and will judge those who slaughter children as well.

I will not tell someone how to vote or who to vote for. I can only be true to my own convictions and pray for mercy for a nation that has drenched itself in blood.

[David Epps is the pastor of the Cathedral of Christ the King, 4881 Hwy. 34 E., Sharpsburg, GA 30277. Services are held Sundays at 8:30 and 10 a.m. ( He is the bishop of the Mid-South Diocese ( and is the associate endorser for U. S. military chaplains for his denomination. He may be contacted at]


Dillik's picture

<em>"Oh, I know that the issues of rape, incest, and the life of the mother are sometimes used as excuses but these cases are so rare as to be statistically insignificant."</em>

Whew, this should definitely come as a relief to women who are raped.

<em>"However, I cannot and will not support a candidate or a party who advocates ending a child’s life and labeling such an atrocity as merely a matter of “choice.”"</em>

What about ending a zygote's life? Development is a gradual process from "not-a-baby" to "how-the-heck-can-you-not-call-this-a-baby." However, both sides of this debate prefer to cling to conveniently concrete extremes (zygote is a baby just because gametes have combined; fully-developed fetus isn't just because it hasn't been born or induced yet). Personally, I'd be happy with an abortion ban that only takes effect at some nigh-arbitrary point in the middle (with some sort of ongoing exception for mother's health).

Unfortunately, it seems most liberals trust conservatives to stop with a halfway abortion ban as much as most conservatives trust liberals to stop with a halfway gun ban. "Sure, we promise to ban only a reasonable amount!" doesn't usually go over so well.

THE untold side with all this abortion talk is just how advantageous abortions are for the Non Abortion crowd, and how Harmful abortions are to the Pro Abortion crowd.

Blacks, are by and large Democrat Voters, as are their offspring and yet 69% of Black Pregnancies end in abortions , Hispanics too are largely Democrats and they end 54% of their pregnancies in abortion.
Over time this can only harm the Democrat ranks, and aide in republican numbers

% numbers are from the CDC’s web site

Dillik's picture

That was mighty convincing how you typed numbers in and followed them up with a mention of the CDC's website. :-D

So were your BS numbers referring to abortion rates (abortions per thousand women) or abortion ratios (abortions per thousand live births)? I'm no scientician, but I'm kinda thinking ~500 abortions to 1000 live births isn't equal to 69% of black pregnancies ending in abortions. It seems kinda like one-third (500/1500 pregnancies).

Anyway, that's still high, and I propose we encourage a reduction in abortions (especially late-term ones) in ways that don't involve made-up racist statistics, or statistical analysis that ignores poverty rates, social inequality, and disparities in health care quality. For example, free contraception.

some time as have been condoms. I am not really for abortion but I also am not for someone else telling me what to do with my body--and it is usually a man. Until these men are ready to have permanent vasectomies to prevent unwanted pregnancies, I will continue to feel they should leave this decision to the woman.

MajorMike's picture

Well said.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

Yes indeed Injun. You got it. The Dems can indeed take themselves out of the gene pool with their support of abortion and gay marriage. So be it. Works for me. Let it happen. And we can speed up the extinction of thugs (all of whom are Dems, doncha know) by buying guns and using them on predators before they take our stuff - and more to the point - before they reproduce. Sound like a plan? Keep one in the pipe at all times.

Message to GOP - when your opponents are committing suicide, just shut up and let them do it. OK? Got it? No more BS about the sanctity of life or life begins at conception. Of course all that is true and good - just leave it out of the government and political dialog. It is a good and virtuous point, but a loser politically. I mean, you want to feel smug and good about your church experience on Sunday and then have this Obama clown as President 24/7 ? For another 4 years? Are you nuts? Maybe your kid needs help overseas. What then? Think people. Think!

Live free or die!

Ad space area 4 internal

Sponsored Content