Now before I say anything, I need to say that I won't be able to spend much, if any, time debating this. (I would enjoy it if I could though!) I would be interested in all of your steeple people opinions. Personnally, I think that it was a very bad choice on McCain's part. Good politics, but bad morals. Here is a very interesting blog post by Voddie Baucham. Please read it and give me your ideas. ;-)

Of course, I have an opinion and am open to share it.  But I start my thoughts in a different place.  Dr. Francis Schaeffer has noted that "the men who laid the foundation of the United States Constitution were not Christians in the full sense, and yet they built upon the basis of the Reformation either directly through the Lex, Rex tradition or indirectly through Locke." (see Samuel Rutherford, John Locke, and Thomas Jefferson progression)

I almost get the sense that fundamentalists were quick to pick up the United States' overall movement from a Christian memory to an attempt to separate Christianity from the US government; therefore, the honest historians quickly began to remind the US of several strong Christians in our past.  With the boom of the evangelical movement, we start to see Christians painting our founding fathers as righteous, God fearing, Bible believing individuals.  But the more I explore, I get the feeling that the general concensus of most of our founding fathers is best stated by Benjamin Franklin: "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see."  And they stopped there.

So what has been the effect of the over-emphasis of our god-respecting founding fathers?  We have come to believe that the United States is or was a Christian nation!  Besides being grammatically wrong, the more I explore the more I find that an over-emphasis of our Christian background is just as bad as an under-emphasis.

So I ask you to find for me (just a few) God fearing, Bible believing presidents of the United States who had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  It is going to be very difficult.  Yet, God has blessed us as a nation and has continued to do so.  So maybe our blessings are not coming from righteous leaders.  Wasn't Babylon blessed by God?  So too it was destroyed by God!

I agree with Voddie that many have tried to paint McCain and Palin as leaders of Biblical proportion--which they are not.  So maybe as a voter today our question should not be should we vote for a King David verses a King Ahab (which is unfortunately not the option we have), but maybe we should be determining if we should vote for a Caesar Augustus verses a Nero.

Just some thoughts.  They are not completely developed in my head yet.  The question I am struggling with is does God require nations to abide by his guidelines for Christians?

 I agree pretty much 100% with Mr. Bauchan's article. 

 As an entrepreneur, I enjoy analyzing different marketing techniques.  And unfortuneately, that's what politics has become - the biggest marketing campaign of them all!

I have to say, though - from a marketing perspective, McCain's pick was sheer genius.

Strategically, it was brilliant to choose Gov. Palin.

But isn't it strategy and compromise that gets our leaders elected? Start with John Adams, the second POTUS, and look at each one. Not one said, "Let's decide what is best for the country and do that, regardless of whether I'm elected or not." We have a term for those guys: Losers.

Now, as far as my opinion is concerned, my jury is still out. On the one hand, I'm excited that Sen. McCain picked a socially and fiscally conservative person who values human life. On the other hand is my opinion that leadership belongs to strong, wise men -- Ron Paul definitely excluded (Did you see former governor Jesse Ventura? Dude, that was horrible.)

Oh what fine lines we tread... While it was and interesting article, there are a couple of points that are missing. 1st: So, uh... where are all the perfect men that fit the bill??? Why are they not stepping up??? 2nd: I for one, am not gonna question wether or not God is in control. I can site here and read the book of Esther, (A woman who had the rulers ear in making important decisions etc.) and nod my head in agreement... but I should doubt that God is capable of doing it again? Do I believe that God himself picked this woman? Not really... Do I long for a time when there would have been a man (or men) ready willing and able to accept this task? Yep. Can I see that God can and WILL work through anything? Absolutely. And DON'T get me started on that "Oh, she went to a speech when she was pregnant" thing... When a man goes through 5 pregnancies, then I'll listen to his opinion about childbirth!!! (Doctors included!!) All this being said... honestly, I still am unsure about her, But I darn well am not gonna sit here and bash her like a tree hugging, three-eyed yak pup saving, liberal!

And uh... POTUS??? Love it!

Good points, Fluffy.  We also appear to neglect that the fact when a man becomes president, his involvement in his family comes to a slow down (almost halt).  We do not appear troubled when a man is away from home because of politics.  We actually call it noble.

Plus there's the fact that she's hot. Until now, we've had Ann Coulter (and possibly Michelle Malkin and Maureen Dowd) as our babe. But you have to admit that it was time for some librarian hotness in the conservative ranks.

Mrs. Napalm, you're the only one for me, though.

And I've heard she can field-dress a moose.  That's hot!

 Just so you know, in my post today I included a Poll about Palin Check it out here [link]

 Ok guys, I really don't have much time to spend on this. I generally try not to post when I don't have time to deal with it, but we're busy working on a website, and I really wanted to see what everybody else thought about this.

Personally, I support Chuck Baldwin. I don't think we should compromise on God's standards. We should vote only for those that we feel are Biblically qualified, and then leave the results to God. If everybody weren't afraid to vote outside of a party, and were as willing to stand on principle when they vote, as much as they want politicians to, I believe our Country would be a lot better off.

Wesley-
I really didn't have time to look anybody up. But George Washington did come to mind... (Read George Washington's Sacred Fire).

I personally think that the culture was such, at the time of the founders, that it was unnecessary to go any further. However:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were... the general principles of Christianity... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. -John Adams

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty - as well as the privilege and interest - of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. -John Jay

As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities. -George Mason

No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people... This is a Christian nation.  -Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States 1892 Quoted 87 precedents

I realize that I posted these before. However, I think it shows pretty clearly that this was, and has been for some time, a Christian nation.

TheWilli-
I agree that politics really is basically a marketing game. And it was good marketing... Although the Liberals are busy digging up trash, as usual.

Wesley-
I think that Voddie made that point as well. It seems to me that politics is a lot like the military (active duty). I don't really call it noble for a family man.

I will try to read this thread, but I won't have time to post much. I do appreciate hearing all of your opinions though!

A handful of quotes does not prove that this is a "Christian" nation [Note: Nations are not Christians. People are Christians.] Although it is evident that the nation was built on Christian morals and God's laws, why was it done so? Right now I don't have the answer, but I think it can be found in Enlightenment, Deism and John Locke so I'll start there.

But I do know that George Washington never proclaimed to be a Christian -- ever.

John Adams was a Unitarian who denied the divinity of Christ. So, it's clear he wasn't a Christian.

In 1813 Jefferson rejected the deity of Jesus. So, he wasn't a Christian.

It is unclear if James Madison was a Christian. He never said, so I'm led to believe he wasn't.

Why is it that a supposed "Christian" nation elected people who denied the deity of Christ, the one pillar on which true Christianity stands? It isn't until maybe Andrew Jackson, the seventh POTUS, (you could possibly argue John Q. Adams) that you find someone who at least acknowledged Jesus but it wasn't until after his term as president.

Informative article: [link].

Here is a novel approach: What does the Bible say about 1) the qualifications for civil leaders? 2) whether a nation can be righteous? and if so, how? 3) pragmatism v principle in our decision-making (ie- faith v sight)? May I suggest some starting spots? Genesis 1-3 Exodus 18 I Corinthians 11 I Timothy 3 Ephesians 5 Isaiah 26 Isaiah 58 John 11:45-52 Acts 7:7 Revelation 2:26 Revelation 15:3 - "King of the nations" And, Thomas, welcome to the discussions. If you are still about, here are a few things to ponder: 1) Please show me the primary resources that prove that Lincoln was a wise leader. The primary resources I have seen show him to be a bigot who was greatly deceived on the meaning and purpose of our constitutionally confederated union, which he single-handedly destroyed. 2) Your statement that the Bible is a part of deciding how to vote is an example of the humanistic and pluralistic approach to God's Word so prevalent in our world today. It is not a part of the decision. It is the WHOLE of the decision. Respectfully, B8

B8, good to see you in the forums again.

[comments removed]

I removed my comment because I was not satisfied with it.  I need to think on it some more!

Joe Napalm:

A handful of quotes does not prove that this is a "Christian" nation [Note: Nations are not Christians. People are Christians.] Although it is evident that the nation was built on Christian morals and God's laws, why was it done so? Right now I don't have the answer, but I think it can be found in Enlightenment, Deism and John Locke so I'll start there.

But I do know that George Washington never proclaimed to be a Christian -- ever.

John Adams was a Unitarian who denied the divinity of Christ. So, it's clear he wasn't a Christian.

In 1813 Jefferson rejected the deity of Jesus. So, he wasn't a Christian.

It is unclear if James Madison was a Christian. He never said, so I'm led to believe he wasn't.

Why is it that a supposed "Christian" nation elected people who denied the deity of Christ, the one pillar on which true Christianity stands? It isn't until maybe Andrew Jackson, the seventh POTUS, (you could possibly argue John Q. Adams) that you find someone who at least acknowledged Jesus but it wasn't until after his term as president.

Informative article: [link].

You are right, a few quotes doesn't prove anything. However, there was a study done (I think it may have been the University of Maryland...), that discovered, after spending years going through quotes and first-hand documents, that the founders quoted the Bible more than anything else. Right, but Christian people make a Christian nation. Christian v. Deists by Joe Morecraft is a good resource.

At the moment I don't have the time to refute that. However, I still have to say that I'm not convinced...

IF that was the case, that is too bad. I still feel that we should vote based on Biblical principles, and leave the results up to God.