Latest Photos

Entra la Plaza ACU FB vs. HBU DRI Pumpkin Patch Things to Eat in Abilene Homecoming Musical 2015 Volleyball Trio ACU FB vs. HBU ACU FB vs. HBU
View more photos >


Endorsement: Obama for a second term

By Optimist Editorial Board
Posted on October 23, 2012 | Editorials | 40 comments

This endorsement is the collective opinion of the Optimist Editorial Board and should not be taken as the views of the the university. The endorsement was published on Wednesday, Oct. 24 along side guest columns from the presidents of both College Republicans and College Democrats.

Politics and elections can be overwhelming for everyone, especially college students.

For most of us, this is the first election in which we can vote, meaning we just started paying attention. With debates, political ads and countless issues, it is hard to know where to start.

Barack Obama

It is unrealistic to expect to agree with a candidate on every issue, so from a Christian college student’s perspective, we decided three issues were of particular significance for our demographic in this election: foreign policy, health care and the national debt.

In regard to foreign policy, our belief is that the government’s job is to provide defense for Americans both at home and abroad, to work with allies to protect human rights around the world and to provide help for any countries who explicitly ask for it.

We also believe our military should move away from its history of intervention. While problems regarding gun control, gang violence and drug wars rage on our home soil, our focus often seems to be on other countries’ problems. Barack Obama has established a timeline that will remove troops from Afghanistan by 2014.

(Although in the final presidential debate, we did see Romney realign himself with this same timeline.)

During his years in office, Obama has also helped the Pentagon’s civilian intelligence staff to grow by 20 percent while cutting spending. Romney’s platform has clearly shown his intention to increase the military budget.

In 2011, our military spent $711 billion, nearly five times as much as China, which spent the second most, and equal to the next 14 countries combined. A military of this size and at this cost in the state of the economy is absurd.

The attacks of Sept. 11 could not have been prevented by large numbers of guns and troops and most Americans have never experienced war as a domestic issue. It’s clear that massive military spending is not the answer to our country’s foreign problems.

Domestically, one of the biggest issues facing Americans in this election is health care. When it comes down to it, Romneycare and Obamacare, as the respective candidates’ plans have come to be known, have many similarities. Americans can expect a change in health care either way, but where the candidates differ the most regards who will make these changes.

The work Romney has done in Massachusetts does not serve as a nationwide plan, like Obamacare, but instead as an example of what can happen when a state has the power to establish health care laws initially.

We live in one of the largest countries in the world in terms of both area and population, and it is ignorant to believe there will not be differences in beliefs throughout regions of America. But when states are given the power to choose, there is a much better chance that a majority of constituents will be happy.

In the past, we’ve seen issues like slavery, drinking age and many others decided on a state-to-state basis. In many cases, these laws become nationwide over time.

We would like to see the national government provide a basic requirement for health care that states can then tailor for their own population’s needs.

Romney’s plan allows for states to decide the best way to provide healthcare for its people, something that Obamacare wants to make nationwide.

We believe one of the biggest mistakes a voter can make is assuming a president’s policies will affect an economy as vast as our own in only four years. Many economists have hypothesized that at any point in time, our economy is actually the result of policies established multiple terms in the past.

Four years after Obama’s election, it seems many of those same Americans are ready to assume he has had “enough time” to make a mark on the economy.

Spending cuts alone will not make even a small dent on our $16 trillion debt. The government also needs to increase its revenue by spreading the tax burden equally on all classes and closing loopholes for the upperclass. Through this, and a focus on job creation, we will hopefully begin to see the economy flourishing again.

While we also agree with Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate, on all three of these issues, he has plans to diminish government to an extreme extent. However, it is important to realize that a third party brings another platform to voters and we wish we had an opportunity to hear him debate and present his perspective alongside the two dominant parties.

After establishing our stances on each of these issues and comparing them to each candidates platforms, we feel that Barack Obama is the candidate most deserving of our vote on Election Day.

avatar Posted by Optimist Editorial Board on Oct 23rd, 2012 and filed under Editorials. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.  - This post has been viewed 55580 times.

40 Responses for “Endorsement: Obama for a second term”

  1. avatar Mark Smith says:

    Now that voting is over, we are closing the comments on this post. If you would like to continue these conversations, please do so individually.

  2. avatar GanzAndere says:

    Thanks to the editorial board The Optimist for having the courage to print this. I’ve never been prouder to be an ACU alum (MDiv ’84). Good education must encourage independence of thought and the courage to express unpopular opinions even when they conflict with traditional & regional expectations. It’s clear ACU is doing something very well.

  3. avatar MDT1020 says:

    Without stating here the many issues I have with Barak Obama and his leadership, I think the issue here is ACU as a position on this candidate. I dont see this as simply a situation regarding a freedom of speech and thought issue. Most concerning is the fact that the world is watching what religious organizations are doing, and I feel, along with many other Alumni, that this sends a message of compliance and submission to a political effort deteremined to subjugate the very essence of our religious foundations. Sometimes people, ideas and leaders are wrong and we are charged to call them as an enemy of our morals and therefore a precedent for our stance for the cannons of our faith. Where have you stood up for Christ here? If we don’t make a difference here from what the world is blasting upon our culture, then ACU is more like a pretender than a difference maker. The founding fathers, in particular Jefferson, would have urged us to stand up for that in this situation. I am but a lowly businessman and father, but I cannot be anything but disappointed here with the whole situation. Don’t let the world stifle your faith and fool you that the thinking of the majority, – or what is pushed by the media, -or what is part of the pop culture is in fact….right. If that were the case a small group of men would have not stood up to King George and the freedom championed here would not exist.

    Dean Todd

  4. avatar CoreyCheek says:

    I would encourage the Editorial Board to read this and retract the endorsement:

    Here’s the link proving Obama is the most pro-abortion President in U.S. history:

    • avatar nevergoingbackagain4 says:

      As I said in response to another post, why should we expect a Romney administration to actually make pro-life policies a priority? We’ve given the Republicans massive political powers in the past, and what have they done with it?

      • avatar Kay See says:

        We have also given the Democratic party massive political powers in the past and what have they done with it? We have them promoting same-sex marriage, aborations paid for by tax dollars, Obamacare – whch not only controls the health care and forcing Americans to buy health insurance, but also controls student loans….
        So, why has the Democratic Presidents and Democratic congress not overturned Roe v. Wade????

        • avatar nevergoingbackagain4 says:

          Kay, if you read my post I’m sure you know that I never said the Democrats are a pro-life party. What I did say was that the one party that declares itself to be pro-life hasn’t made any progress towards making legal abortion a thing of the past.

          There is one statistic that needs to be repeated again and again however. After years of increasing, the first time since Roe v. Wade that the number of abortions dropped was under Bill Clinton.

  5. avatar CoreyCheek says:

    How can the campus paper at a Christian University endorse a Presidential candidate without considering social issues like abortion and the homosexual agenda / movement?

    How can the campus paper at a Christian University endorse a Presidential candidate without citing scripture?

    Barak Obama is the most pro-abortion President in U.S. history (easily verifiable via google). He is also a strident proponent / defender of the homosexual agenda / movement.

    Abortion and homosexuality are both abominations in the eyes of our Lord. Abortion is murder. Based on Obama’s first 4 years, 1.2 million babies will be murdered at Planned Parenthood alone if Obama is given another 4 years. This filthy reality will be paid for by our tax dollars, which is a violation of Christians’ First Amendment right of freedom of religion.

    Your endorsement of Obama furthers the kingdoms of abortion and homosexuality. On a lesser note, I have personally been asked more than once, “how can ACU endorse Obama when he is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage.” Although I understand “ACU” has not endorsed Obama (“The Optimist” has), the perception is that “ACU” has, which has damaged ACU’s reputation and the reputation of its graduates.

    This election is not about which candidate is a stronger Christian. I do not know if either is actually saved, and neither do you. Its not my responsibility, nor do I have that ability (we know their words, but not their hearts). The question is who will lead our country in a manner that most closely follows the path laid out for us in the Bible.

    Romney is far from perfect, but what part of Romney’s platform / how he says he will lead is us anti-biblical?

    These are not rhetorical questions … as an ACU graduate (‘92), I would like answers.


    Corey Cheek

  6. avatar Cindy says:

    Who will I vote for? I will vote for the most pro-life candidate, because God hates the shedding of innocent blood (Prov.6:17). I will vote for the most pro-Israel candidate, because God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who don’t (Gen.12:3). I will vote for the most pro-debt reduction candidate, because the borrower is servant to the lender (Prov.22:7). I will vote for the most pro-work candidate because God says if a man does not work, let him not eat (2 Thes. 3:10). I will vote for the most pro-marriage candidate, because God is for marriage as defined in Genesis 2:24. I will vote for the candidate who most closely believes government’s purpose is to reward the good and punish the evil (Romans 13). I will vote based as close as I can on God’s Word (2 Tim.3:16), knowing that whoever gets elected, God is the one who puts all men in authority (Dan. 2:21). As the late man of God, Dr. D. James Kennedy said, “Lord, give us the leader that we need – – not the one we deserve.”

    • avatar nevergoingbackagain4 says:

      To base your support of a secular apartheid state masquerading as the biblical nation of Israel using Genesis 12 is disturbing. You can’t proof-text your way through politics.

      The real world is filled with tricky questions and nuance. Obama is anti-Israel? Well, he is opposed to the current political leadership and to the building of new settlements, but where is the proof-text for supporting right-wing Likud Party policy? You won’t find it. But beyond those issues, the US under Obama continues to favor Israel in the international community.

  7. avatar Sqarky says:

    Thank you to the staff of The Optimist for creating an interesting and civil article about today’s political issues and for staying true to their own beliefs, endorsing a candidate that is not so popular in Texas. Keep up the good work!

    • avatar Cindy says:

      What “beliefs” are you referencing that the Optimist is staying true to? Their beliefs in God and His principles and commands for our lives or their beliefs in themselves and their citizen rights? Hmmm… I thought this was a Christian University. Thank you to the staff of the Optimist for letting ACU alumni, students, families, and prospective students know exactly where you stand. Sad!

  8. avatar barkig says:

    My comment is a simple question: how does one justify voting for an individual who actively supports abortion (murder of a live human being) and same-sex union?

    • avatar Sqarky says:

      Easily. Both topics you just mentioned are personal rights issues. The government should not tell women or homosexuals what they can or cannot do with their own bodies and their own lives. As a Christian, I do not feel completely comfortable with how some people choose to live, but I cannot use the government to force people what to do.

      • avatar Kay See says:

        We should allow God and the Bible to guide our lives. It is funny that Democrats do not want the government to tell them who they can marry or what women can do with their reproductive organs, but yet they want the goverment to tell them what insurance to buy, etc….you can not have it both ways.
        Let the Bible be your guide.

      • avatar nevergoingbackagain4 says:

        I understand the sentiment, Sqarky, but the argument that pro-life advocates make is that abortion is not simply affecting one’s own body or one’s own life. Abortion is affecting the life of the child who is aborted.

        The last thing I want to do is tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. It’s none of my business. But so long as I believe that an unborn child has all the human worth as a child that has been born, I will continue to support anti-abortion measures.

    • avatar nevergoingbackagain4 says:

      How many Republican presidents have been elected since Roe v. Wade? How many times have the Republicans taken control of congress? And still abortion on-demand is perfectly legal in this country.

      Why should I expect that a Mitt Romney presidency to be any different? Why should I expect change from the Republican leadership now?

      If I believed that a vote for Romney was a vote against abortion, I would vote for him. Otherwise, I’m voting for the candidate who I agree with on the economy and foreign relations.

      • avatar Kay See says:

        You need to go back a take a gov’t class…

        Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision passed, not a law passed by any president or any congress.

        The only way Roe v. Wade will get overturned is to get a conservative President elected who will appoint conservative Supreme Court justices who will overturn the law.

        But even then, as G.H.W. Bush found out, appointing what you think is a conservative judge doe not always work out. They become a supreme court justice and all of their conservative views go out they door.

        So, you are willing to vote for 4 more years of the same thing, which is nothing?

        • avatar nevergoingbackagain4 says:

          Kay, I am aware that Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision. Perhaps you were just being mean-spirited when you said that I needed to take a government class, but I’m going to assume you weren’t. I hope that people can disagree with you without you assuming that they’re ignorant.

          Why should I assume that Romney will be any more successful in putting genuine pro-life judges on the bench? The man was pro-choice for years, after all. Why should I assume any of the conservative justices would overturn Roe v. Wade, when Chief Justice John Roberts called the ruling the “law of the land?”

          I am not sure what you mean by “4 years of the same thing, which is nothing.” I am not a diehard Obama supporter. I do, however, believe that strong unions, a healthy infrastructure, universal access to healthcare, and a non-expansionist foreign policy are good for America. So this year I’m voting Democratic.

          Can we still be friends?

          • avatar Kay See says:

            We can be friends….what should I call you? Never?

            I’d like to leave you with 2 things that my dad has told me a number of times…

            1. When all is said and done, more is said then done. I beleive that is VERY true when it comes to politics.

            2. Am I your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

            So, what shall i call you and did you do to ACU??

  9. avatar says:

    I’d like to ask the Optimist Editorial Board….if you are supporting Obama, are you supporting the Democratic Party and all that they stand for too?

    How can one be a Christian and a Democrat. I challenge you to take an honest look at what the differences are.

    When you support and cast your vote for Obama, you are supporting and casting your vote for the Democratic Party and all they stand for or stand against.

    You can talk about the national debt…when one does not have a budget (a budget has not been passed in 3 years), how do you know how much you need to tax people or how much is being spent by the government? How can you cut a percentage from a budget when there is no budget?

    You can talk about healthcare issues, but the private sector needs to regulate the insurance industry – not government. Let the free enterprise system work.

    You can talk about the military…Romney believes that we need to leave Afghanistan too, he just does not believe in telling exactly when. There was an old saying in WWII…loose lips sank ships. The government does not need to tell everything they know or are doing to everyone.

    Spreading the wealth….What would y’all say to us taking your good grades and giving them to say, someone who is not doing so well in their classes? You would have a fit! Is this not the same thing that you are wanting to do? Without those who make money and hire prople, there are no jobs. When was the alst time you saw a poor person hire someone?

    As a Chrstian, you should be supporting the party that is more in line with Christ and his teaching…so please tell me, how can you be a Christian and a democrat too?

    Kay See, CPA
    ACU 1981

    • avatar drewtn says:

      Kay, I’m a little confused by your comment. You talk about democrats being “un-Christian” and your first example is not having passed a budget in 3 years… Not sure how that makes them un-Christian.

      As for military, I’m all for pulling out of Afghanistan, like both candidates claim they are too. However, it appears likely that Romney would just shift our troops into Iran instead. As Christians, how are we to reconcile another war with passages where Christ instructs us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies, as well as his statement to Peter that those who live by the sword die by the sword? According to the Iraq War Logs, from 2004 to 2009 the war in Iraq killed 109,032 people, 66,081 of those deaths being civilians. I can’t understand a Christian wanting to take that route again over the Gospels commands for peace.

      And spreading the wealth is anti-Christian? Someone should have been around to tell that to the early Christians…

      “The believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need… No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had…”

      “There were no needy persons among them. From time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.”

      And considering the way Jesus talked about the rich, and even threw money changers out of the temple, I’d say he’d probably be more in line with a proportionate tax burden than a system that allows 1% of the country to own 40% of the wealth, and only 5% of the national debt. Sounds like it’s time for a good old fashioned Jubilee.

      The republican party would also like to see the rights of illegal immigrants taken away, despite how difficult we make it to move to our country legally. How would Jesus react to somebody crossing the border illegally in an attempt to earn money for their family to eat? I’m guessing he probably wouldn’t kick em out.

      So, personally, I find it very easy to be a Christian and a Democrat. As pointed out by the OP, we’re not going to find a candidates who we agree with on everything 100%, but I don’t see any reason why Christians can’t be Democrats. They seem to line up on many things.

      • avatar says:

        Early Christian giving was voluntary. I don’t remember the Roman government taking money from everyone and helping the poor. It is the individuals who are the children of God, who gave from the heart to help their needy brothers and sisters in Christ. Does anyone really believe that forced giving is what pleases the Lord?

      • avatar says:

        I do not believe I said anything about Democrats being “un-Christian”…I just asked the simple question, “How can one be a Christian & a Democrat?

        As far as the budget, etc., I was addressing the issues brought up by the Editorial board in their endorsement of Obama. You can not address the national debt without addressing the lack of a budget. Does not make them un-Christian. But, they can not say they have cut the budget by a certain percentage, because, there is NO BUDGET. You can not cut something you don’t have.

        As far as the military, I feel that we need to pull out, we just don’t need to tell the Taliban when we are leaving. You don’t think that they don’t monitor our liberal news media…they do. One responsibility of the government, according to the US Constitution, is to proctect the American citizens. Let’s just tell the Taliban and those who want to kill Americans what we are doing. It will make it a whole lot easier on them.

        Spreading the wealth – The early Christians gave cheerfully and with a willing heart. There was no “spreading the wealth” The early Christians did not go to their fellow Christians and tell them to give more…to spread the wealth, but each Christian gave as he had prospered…note the key word is “prosper”. The believers sold their possessions and gave the money to the Church who distributed to the needy. They did not give their money to the government to help the needy. We have become too lazy as Christians and we give a little extra to let the government take care of the needs of our fellow Americans. When was the last time that the editorial board members worked in a soup kitche, help build a home or playground. How many of them help with Big Brothers Big Sisters?

        You need to read the story of Jesus and the money changers again. Jesus threw out the money changers because they were profitting in God’s house, the temple. It was a house of worship, not a den of theives, Matt. 21:12-13. Not because they were rich. If Jesus was anti-rich, he would have never chosen Matthew, a tax collector, as a apostle. What about Zacchaeus. He was wealthy by over taxing his fellow citizens. Zacchaeus saw the evil of his ways and gave back to his fellow citizen 4 times what he had overtaxed them.

        Let’s take about the 1%…they also pay over 60% of the tax burden. Are you willing to pay 35% of your income when you get a job? I dare say that you pay any income taxes and that you want all the help going to ACU that you can get from the government from grants to low interest student loans. Not sure where you got your numbers, but like what Obama is putting out, they don’t add up. Remember, I AM a CPA and I do know my numbers.

        Let’s also take about the illegal immigranst. What rights do they have? Are they not here illegally? Maybe our Immigration Dept needs some overhauling, but you want to become an American citizen, come here legally. I have a college friend who is still trying to get his in-laws here leaglly so that they can see their granddaughters. They have not jumped the fence or gone under a tunnel to get here, but they are following the laws – like them or not. Does Christ not say something about breaking laws?

        You have not addressed the fact that the Democratic party is for aboration and gay marriage. Christ was not for homosexuality. you can read a number of scriptures in the Bible that address the fact, such as I Cor. 6:9. What about protecting the unborn child. Did you know that Obama would not even sign a law that gave medical aid to babies that survived abortions? What would Jesus do?

        Are we going to find the perfect canidate for President or as a matter for any political position? The answer is no. But we must find individuals that are intune to Christ teachings.

        If you have not seen “2016”, I suggest you see this movie before you vote. It is out on DVD or you can rent it. Find out more about the man Obama. Then tell me that you can support him for President.

        • avatar Parker Lawson says:

          Obama is a candidate for the president, it is not his job to create a budget. That’s Congress’s job.

          Much of the upper class pays a lower tax percentage than the middle class, lower than 14% for some.

          What rights do illegal immigrants have? Basic human rights surely? Doesn’t the Bible say something about being kind to the widow, the orphan, and the alien in your land.

          Christ probably isn’t a big fan of a lot of things in America today, but just because we as Christians don’t approve of abortion or homosexuality doesn’t mean we can criminalize those who do. Christ would protect the persecuted, and it seems to me that homosexuals are often persecuted.

          I’m not saying you or your opinions are bad, just realize that many Christians are Democrats for good, even Biblical reasons.

          • avatar supotco says:

            “Obama is a candidate for the president, it is not his job to create a budget. That’s Congress’s job.”

            Parker…please reference the The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. As the current sitting executive leader, it is President Obama’s job to submit a budget to Congress for approval. Civics 101.

          • avatar Parker Lawson says:

            It has been pointed out that I misspoke when I said the president does not create a budget, I should have said that he alone does no set the budget. He only creates a budget request which Congress may or may not base their budget resolutions on. In other words, you can’t blame the budget failure completely on one man.

        • avatar Drew Nelson says:

          By insinuating you cannot be a Democrat and a Christian, you’re making Democrats out to be un-Christian…

          And yes, spreading the wealth was mostly voluntary, but I can think of two early Christians who were killed by God when they didn’t give.

          And yes, I believe giving should be voluntary. I don’t think that Christians should just rely on the government to help others. I am currently writing this comment from Africa, where I am currently living, going to school, and the VP of a children’s home here. I worked for a long time, even selling possessions to raise money to get here. I have even had to rely on donations made by other Christians, which I am much thankful for. So yes, we Christians should give willingly. But if Jesus was ok with Christians “rendering to Caesar what was Caesar’s” so that Rome could pay for wars and violence, I think he’d be ok with us paying taxes to help out the poor as well. Much of God’s gripe with kings of the Israel was their treatment of the poor.

          And regardless of wether you believe the statistics or not given about the 1%, you can’t deny the ever growing difference between the lower class and the upper class. What is wrong with wanting to fix the system to give equal chances to everyone?

          And I can think of a rich young ruler (and any camel that has tried to fit through the eye of a needle for that matter) that would argue with you on Jesus’ stance on riches.

          Immigrants still have human rights. And trying to legally come into the country to see your granddaughters is a different situation than trying to come to earn money and food for your family. And if his in-laws are struggling to get here, despite having family in the US, and despite likely being in at least a somewhat ok financial situation, how much harder do you think it is for a migrant farmer just looking for work. Not to mention, many illegals were brought here by there parents when they were children. They didn’t have a choice, but the US is all they know. Out of the two candidates, I believe Obama will do much more for the immigrants looking to improve their lives.

          And you’re right, I am pro-life (I mean that in the true sense of the phrase; anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-abortion) but I am also not a single issue voter. Besides, if you look at studies on Obamacare, which so many conservatives are wanting to get rid of, it may very well be the best national pro-life legislation passed in many many years.,_pro-life_hero_

          As for gay marriage, I’ve got no problem with it. We can’t go through and make every single thing we consider a sin against the law. I’m not comfortable with hetero-sexual couples living together before marriage, but I don’t think we should make pre-marital sex against the law just because the bible condemns it. I see absolutely no reason why gays shouldn’t have the right to be married; that right wouldn’t harm or infringe on anybody else’s rights.
          Personally, I think the government should get out of the marriage business. The gov should give everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, a civil union. If you want a “marriage” then go to the church. But that’s not an option this political season with the 2 candidates we have, and I see gay marriage as the second best option.


          • avatar Kay See says:

            Drew, some of your comments are flawed.

            1.”And yes, spreading the wealth was mostly voluntary, but I can think of two early Christians who were killed by God when they didn’t give” – the 2 early Christians you are talking about were struck dead by God because they lied about what they were giving. They sold their land for a certain sum of money then lied to the apostles about how much they sold it for…therefore God struck them dead, it was not because they did not give.

            2.”And regardless of wether you believe the statistics or not given about the 1%, you can’t deny the ever growing difference between the lower class and the upper class. What is wrong with wanting to fix the system to give equal chances to everyone?” – Everyone is given an equal opportunity. It is what ones does with the opportunity they are given that decides what “class” they will be in. There are kids everyday dropping out of High School because they do not want to do the work to get that HS degree. I worked a minium wage job in high school and college, but I finished college and make good money. I’m middle class, but I own my own home, a car and pay my bills.

            3. “And I can think of a rich young ruler (and any camel that has tried to fit through the eye of a needle for that matter) that would argue with you on Jesus’ stance on riches” – it is the love of money that will keep one from heaven, not the having money. ACU has benefited from a number of wealthy Christians who have given of their money so that ACU can have the campu center, a fitness center, dorms, etc. Just look around the campus and see what people have donated. Also a number of individuals have donated to scholarship funds to help students that want to attend ACU, but can not afford the tuition. Remember, its the “love” of money that will get one in trouble.

            I am proud of you for going to Affica. My family spent 4 years as missionaries. I know the sacrifices that it takes. My family of seven lived on $1,000 a month and my mom bought grociers once a month. But the Church where my dad preached grew from our family and relatives to over 80 when we left. My dad was a President of a company in Dallas and sold insurance and put that aside to preach the Gospel. i would not trade those 4 years for anything.

            God Bless you and just remember, it is up to each of us to make sure that everything we are being told is correct. My dad’s mom, a country girl in Iowa, always told us, when it comes to your soul, you can never be too conservative and my dad always told us kids, our salvation was up to us, to study the Bible to verify what was being told us by the preacher, our teachers, etc. When you stand before God on judgement day, you can not “Blame Bush” for what was or was not done in your life and what you believed.

    • avatar mddaudt says:


      When you try to tell people that their religion should dictate their politics, you are very unlikely to change their political views, but you might just help change their religious views. Speaking only for myself, I can honestly state that arguments such as the one in your comment were significant to my decision to leave the CofC in 1988, during my senior year at ACU after being a life long CofC member. I was highly offended at the suggestion that I could not vote for Democrats in that election and still call myself a Christian. Those arguments succeeded only in persuading me that politics were an important part of what it meant to belong to the CofC, and that I wasn’t welcome if I didn’t share the prevailing political beliefs of the CofC.

      There was a time when Christians were careful to separate religion from politics. There are many good reasons for doing so, and no good reason that I can think of for using religion as a cudgel to try to influence the political views of others, especially against those within your own faith who may become alienated as a result.

      Even though you and I disagree on politics, I understand, and even appreciate, your political zeal. It makes you a good citizen. But it has nothing to do with your relationship with God, and it is wrong of you to suggest that others cannot share your faith without sharing your politics. Jesus never came close to suggesting anything of the sort. God is not a Republican or a Democrat.

      • avatar Kay See says:


        I believe that one’s religious beliefs should dictate how they conduct their lives. As a Christian, we should look at the Bible and let it be our guide. I am not a Republican, nor a Democrat, but a Christian first, then an American second.

        I voted Democrat the first time I ever voted my senior year in High School when we lived in Iowa and before I came to ACU (voted for Jimmy Carter). Over the years both parties have changed their views on various social issues. The Democratic Party of the 60’s-80’s is not the Democratic party they are now, just like back in the 60’s-80’s the Republicans were the ones that most people considered “liberal”, but as Christians, we should never change on views on social issues to fit what our society is doing. Again, we should let the Bible be our guide and see what is says on social issues. The Bible addresses a lot of social issues such as aboration, homosexuality, drinking, dancing, instrumental music, caring for those less fortuanate, giving, etc. Unfortunately, in today’s religious society, we want to treat the Bible as a buffet…we want to pick and choose the rules that we want to follow and if we don’t like what the Bible has to say on that issue, we just ignore it and go on. You either believe all of the Bible or none of the Bible.

        I hope that you will take a hard look at why you left the CofC. If I were a betting person, I would bet that it was more than just the policital issue. You know, no one has told be how you can be a Republican and be a Christian, just like no one has told be how you can be a Democrat and a Christian…they just keep saying that I am calling them Un-Christian if they are Democrat.

        God is not a Republican nor a Democrat is true..but when I stand before God on judgment day, I will have to answer for the things that I did or did not do, how I conducted my life…I can not blame Bush or Obama, I can only look to Kay for what Kay did. Where will you stand on judgement day?

    • avatar nevergoingbackagain4 says:

      Kay, by beginning your post with the question of how a person can be both a Christian and a Democrat you have linked the question of Christianity with every other issue you list after that statement.

      You specifically talk about the model of free-enterprise economics. Must one be an advocate of free markets in order to be a Christian? Free enterprise capitalism is a relatively recent model of economics, as I’m sure you know. Could Christians advocate the economics of feudalism, as they did for a thousand years? Or, heaven forbid, can they advocate social democracy, as the explicitly Christian-democratic political parties of Europe have for decades?

      • avatar Kay See says:

        I beleive that if you read Proverbs 31, you will read about the worthy woman who sold her goods in the market place . The free-enterprise system as been around almost since the beginning of time.

        As i said above, I am not a Republican nor a Democrat…I am a Christian first and then an American. How can you support a president that promotes same sex marriage and abortions and would not sign a law that protected babies that surived abortions and give them medical aid?

        • avatar nevergoingbackagain4 says:

          Kay, I feel like you responded to my post with pretty much the same question each time. I don’t want you to feel like I ignored any of your questions, so here it goes.

          The simple selling of goods in the bible does not indicate free markets. The people of the bible lived under dictatorships most of the time, often with highly controlled economies. History isn’t something that you can proof-text.

          As far as same sex marriage goes, I simply don’t think that’s a battle worth fighting. I think our culture has already defiled marriage with its high divorce rates, even within the church. Until we get our own house in order, who are we to fight this battle with such venom?

          Christian marriage has always been distinct – or should have been – from secular marriage. Secular marriage is a contract. Christian marriage is a covenant that is indisoluble. When we allow the government to define what marriage is for us, we end up accepting things like no-fault divorce as a church. As a result we have lost our moral authority and have had our view of marriage compromised.

          It is not by the authority vested in a minister by the state that Christians are married – it is by the power of God. Why should I care what the state says about marriage?

          As far as the abortion question goes, I’ve explained myself in detail already.

  10. avatar Stanton says:


  11. avatar supotco says:

    Actually, I do have other reactions.

    I think you are confusing foreign policy with defense diplomacy. While defense diplomacy is a part of a nation’s foreign policy, it is not the only part. With the current state of our economy, I think the majority of foreign policy discussions should include trade practices, nation-to-nation lending and, most recently, embassy security.

    I wake up every morning and am thankful that I have not had to “worry about war as a domestic problem for…70 years.” As far as I am concerned, that is/was money well spent. That is tantamount to saying “I have not had a car accident in 10 years…I don’t need insurance.”

    I know that some will ask why we have to spend so much. Well, where is the cut-off point? What is the magical ratio of money invested : adequate national security? I would rather see that money invested in the military than earmarked for yet another failed stimulus venture or flawed social medicine program.

  12. avatar David Singer says:

    I apologize for a minor typo in this article that listed our military expenditures in 2001 as $711 billion. That statistic actually refers to our military expenditures in 2011 ( and the article has been changed to reflect that.

    As for military battles, while the sentence structure does imply that 9/11 was a military battle, this was not intended. The point I wanted to make was that Americans have not had to worry about war as a domestic problem for as long as most of us have been alive. The most recent example you present in your list was 70 years ago.

    When we wake up every morning, we have more legitimate reasons to fear a random shooting than a terrorist attack on home soil.

    I have also made minor changes to wording in the sentences regarding gun control and economic policy to clarify our intended points.

    After clarifying these minor errors in wording, your only other problem seems to be that we could agree with a policy of one candidate and endorse the other.

    To that, I would like to refer you to the politcal column I published last week. (

    To tell yourself that you must either completely agree or disagree with all of a candidate’s policies is to limit yourself as a voter. The candidates are not polar opposites and this election is not black and white.

    While I do prefer Romney’s stance on healthcare, when considering all the issues in the election, I must decide which candidate I agree with most rather than force my opinion to either extreme.

    – David Singer
    senior graphic design major from Pflugerville, TX

  13. avatar supotco says:

    “In 2001, our military spent $711 billion, nearly five times as much as China, which spent the second most, and equal to the next 14 countries combined. A military of this size and at this cost in the state of the economy is absurd.”

    Your figures are from 2001, but you reference the current economy. That is absurd.

    “While gun control, gang violence and drug wars rage on our home soil…”

    How does gun control rage? Are you saying there is too much gun control? I would think there are quite a few people who agree with that assessment.

    “Many economists have hypothesized that at any point in time, our economy is in fact the result of policies established multiple terms in the past.”

    How can you hypothesize and then say “in fact”? Is it an idea or fact? Stick to the smaller words if you can’t use the bigger ones properly.

    “But when states are given the power to choose, there is a much better chance that a majority of constituents will be happy.”

    “Romney’s plan allows for states to decide the best way to provide healthcare for its people, something that Obamacare wants to make nationwide.”

    I’m confused. You endorse Obama, but also support Romneycare?

  14. avatar supotco says:

    “Before Sept. 11… the last time a military battle occurred on American soil was the Civil War. ”

    Boy, so glad ACU no longer requires History courses. Five minutes and an internet search later, I have several instances that refute this statement, which was inherently flawed to begin with. (9/11 was not a military battle, but a terrorist attack)

    1864 – Indian Wars begin with the Sand Creek Massacre
    1877 – Chief Joseph’s War with the Nez Perce Indians.
    1894 – Chicago IL-Pullman Railroad Strike
    1914-1917 – Pancho Villa raids in US territory
    1914 – Ludlow CO-coal mining strike
    WWI – German sub mines Long Island waterway killing 6 on USS San Diego
    1918 – Nogales AZ-Battle of Ambos Nogales
    1932 – WWI veterans’ demonstration met with MacArthur’s and Patton’s forces
    1941 – Hawaii-Japan attacks Pearl Harbor
    1942 – Alaska-Battle of the Aleutian Islands

    I do not include the countless bombings of US Embassies and Military Facilities around the world. I am sure there are more, I just wanted to make a point. The dates may not be completely accurate, as I found them online.

    Ignorance is no excuse for poor research.

  15. avatar jsmith9 says:

    “so from a Christian college student’s perspective, we decided three issues were of particular significance for our demographic in this election: foreign policy, health care and the national debt.”

    Why wouldn’t the standards that the University’s paper would compare both candidates to is Jesus? Why would you not include which candidate is closest to the standards that the University stands for?

    “From a Christian College student perspective” wouldn’t one of the main issues be Christianity?

Comments are closed