I see the question, "Who would Jesus vote for?" all over the place on the Internet. I never see the answer. Let me supply it. He already voted. He voted for God. Would he go into a polling booth and vote for either John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? He most certainly would not! What does that have to do with electability?
Let me also inform you that Jesus himself couldn't get elected in the U.S., not that he'd run in the commonly thought of method of running for ruler. He's already running for ruler only people don't perceive it. He's been running for ruler of the world all along.
He's already the ruler of the world by rights (righteousness), but those with selfish hearts refuse to concede and step aside for someone who could save the planet and has saved it in the sense that any real Christian understands the world and planet (spiritually). We are more than flesh alone. We come out from what is not matter but spirit.
The real Jesus isn't popular the way he should be. His real teachings are more hated than loved. In a popularity contest, he loses right now to his arch enemy(s).
Being right isn't popular. Being bad is popular. Many are called. Few are chosen.
Electability is about compromising principle for worldly power. That's something Jesus has never done.
Until the people of the world wake up and stop fighting each other on the false spectrum of so-called left and right, this planet will continue sinking. It is a divided house that cannot stand. This idea of American-style democracy isn't ever going to work. It is fatally flawed.
The world must move to unselfishness, cooperation, giving, and sharing and away from greed, violence, and all other forms of harm (depravity). We are to bring forth or lose the kingdom. It is either success or extinction as a species. That's the rule of existence on this plane.
After fleshly extinction, only the spiritual will be alive as resurrected flesh (incorruptible; a new flesh for a New Earth and New Heaven).
See: "Obama, Not Wright, Is Obama's Worst Enemy," by Earl Ofari Hutchinson:
Whoever on Team Obama keeps feeding into Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's seeming compulsive need to speak out on the Reverend Jeremiah Wright should get the swift boot. When Wright went on his latest public and media tear, Obama should have simply issued a statement saying this: Wright is no longer my pastor. And as I have said repeatedly, his views do not reflect mine, and then move on.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)