State Line

If I accepted your reasoning, then I would not vote at all.

 

I know. But I can dream.

 

Where are you getting that idea?

 

This song by Pete Seeger pretty well sums up my retirement.

 

Again, if I accepted what you said in those two sentences, then I would not vote at all. And since I doubt anyone agrees with another person 100% of the time, then no one should be voting at all.

 

And this discussion brings me back to something, that I find to be very interesting, that I keep around for an occasion such as this.

David Lipscomb quoting B.U. Watkins in Lipscomb’s book, "On Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian's Relation to It".

“One of the signs of the great Apostacy, was the union of Church and State. Its chosen symbol was a woman upon the back of a seven headed and ten horned beast. It is almost uniformly admitted, among American Protestants, that this is a well chosen symbol to represent the absurd, and unnatural union of Church and State. It is generally conceded, that the woman represents the Church, and the beast the old Roman civil government. This being true, it would appear far more natural for her to be riding the beast, than for him to have his locomotion promoted by the help of the woman! When the State comes forward and proffers its assistance, and the Church voluntarily accepts of such help, it might be a question, which would be the most to blame; the Church for accepting, or the State for offering such assistance. But when the Church gives, unasked, her power to the beast, no excuse can reasonably be pleaded. If the State supporting the Church, is called an adulterous union, I am unable to see, why the union is not equally intimate, and criminal, when the Church supports the State, by participating in all its responsibilities. When the Church offers her fellowship, and co-operation in framing all the laws of the land, and in choosing its judicial and executive officers - when even her members refuse not to become legislators, and are even forward to fill all the offices of human governments, I cannot see, but the relation between church and State, is as intimate as ever, and just as illegal. Ezekiel chided the ancient Hebrews for seeking such union with the nations; and he compares Israel to a woman of the lowest infamy. It is exceedingly painful to me, to see how aptly these symbols of John and Ezekiel apply to modern professors. But how greatly would I rejoice, if the reformation of the 19th century would arise and put on her beautiful garments, and show herself to be the true spouse of Christ. May the good Lord grant that this noble brotherhood, that I so dearly love, may soon see the whole truth! But here, I am met with the objection, that these institutions are ordained of God. And he who resists them resists an ordinance of God, and shall receive punishment. Let me here pause, and remark, that I would sooner be understood as taking the popular view of this passage, rather than appear to countenance any kind of war. Nothing is further from my intention. But the fact of civil government being ordained of God, is no proof of Divine approbation. So long as it can be clearly shown that he has ordained that one sinner should punish another, so long as we read in Isaiah, that Cyrus was sent against Babylon, although he knew not God, so long as we find it not difficult to admit the application of the above passage, to civil government, whether such be its meaning or not. To make the admission saves much time, and leaves the argument much more compact. Something is gained and nothing lost by granting all we can to our opponents. That God can overrule sin, without being responsible for its commission, and without having any complicity with it, is a thing so plain, that to turn aside to explain it would almost be an insult to those for whom these columns are written. Let a hint suffice. Pharaoh was raised up by God for a certain purpose, although his behavior was far from being approved of God. With a few axioms I will close this article. Axiom 1st, No man has the right of making laws for his own government. For such a right would include the double absurdity of making him independent of God, and responsible only to himself! Axiom 2nd. A republican government is one in which power is thought to be delegated by the people to their rulers, in their act of voting. Axiom 3rd. But a man cannot delegate a power he himself does not possess. Hence, INFERENCE 1st. As man has no inherent legislative power, he cannot transfer it to another. Hence, INFERENCE 2nd. Voting is therefore a deception, and a sham, making a deceiver of him, who votes, and a dupe of him who fancies himself the recipient of delegated power.”

 

So you're saying that the Democratic Party is bad-mouthing minor parties and independents? Well, they do have freedom of speech to urge people to not vote for other candidates, just as the GOP does.

 

I have not heard of anything other than the typical challenges both of the major parties usually make to try to keep other parties and independents off of the general election ballot.

 

You sound like you make the whole idea of voting in a kind of "rocket science". I don't think of voting in such a complicated, elaborate way. I think of voting more as, to use a football analogy, "three yards and a cloud of dust".

 

Like I said, typical behavior by the major parties. Been seeing it for years.

 

@JonC Frankly, all of this political conversation is getting tiresome for an old man like me. I may have to stay away from the News and the Political forums for a while.