Today is election day in Canada. Roughly 200 babies will be aborted; that is, murdered, in Canada today. And we are encouraged to get out there and vote in order to elect our next leader. The Bible says this: “Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king” (1 Peter 2.17.) These four commands are given out by the apostle Peter in his first epistle. My article concerns the fourth: honor the king.
The Roman Empire was the kingdom into which Peter was born. It was a dictatorial empire that was ruled by a cruel Caesar. Insofar as one is able, without denying one’s faith, one should honor his king or leader, even such a king as Caesar was. That is the force which this command carries.
The citizen of Canada lives under a democracy and, as such, is governed by an elected official that the citizen has either said yea or nay to on election day. In our democracy, the leaders of each party urge the citizen to vote. Voting is not mandatory, however, and if it were, it would be debatable, given what our politicians stand for, whether the citizen had just cause to refuse to vote, especially if the citizen were a Christian. Regardless, because our democracy does not bind anyone to vote, it is certain that the citizen may honor his leader in spite of scorning his option to cast a ballot.
The best way to honor a leader is to remind him of the great moral issues of our time and the fact that the leader will be made to answer to God regarding those moral issues that he campaigned on or not, ignored or not, or perhaps belittled into nothing from the highest office in the land.
There are many great moral issues that our politicians, in the midst of a heathenish people, will not campaign on. In light of Old Testament history and the negative fallout resulting from the sins of idolatry, blasphemy, fornication, and adultery, one could make a good case for putting sins like these into a platform as things to campaign against. After all, what politician, if pressed for an answer, would claim to be an atheist?
Another great sin that put Old Testament peoples in conflict with God was murder. Rampant murder, in Old Testament terms, is called ‘polluting the land with blood.’ To pollute the land with blood is to allow murders to go on unrequited (Numbers 35.31.) Immunity to the crime of murder was most conspicuous among the Canaanites, and later the Israelites who imitated the Canaanites, in the practice of shedding the innocent blood of sons and daughters as a form of worship to idols (Psalm 106.38.) That self-made license to kill cannot but remind us of our own self-made license to abort our own sons and daughters in our worship of those two great idols: hedonism and feminism. These idols, if they could speak, would say that a person should be allowed to have sex without bearing responsibility, even if that means that the soul granted by God in the sexual act must be sent right back to God without a chance to live out his days upon the earth.
Politicians may mouth a profession of faith in God at election time. When such a profession is made, it is usually done out of fear of what voters might think if atheism were alluded to instead. The political profession of faith, moreover, commonly comes down to nothing more than a belief in the existence of a higher power that might be anything that anyone might imagine. A profession of atheism is not a good political strategy yet. But a politician’s empty profession of faith in God is good enough to satisfy citizens who are, at best, nominal Christians or bare theists, and who are, in truth, practical atheists. (I speak generally.)
What politicians do have faith in are people and science. So while it is irrational to expect a politician to campaign against idolatry per se, it should be rational to expect one of them to campaign against one of the effects, at least, of the idolatrous worship of hedonism and feminism, for abortion is the murder of people, and according to science, fetuses embody the features and characteristics of people no matter how close the microscopes come to actual conception.
Stockwell Day was intimidated to back off on the abortion issue when he was campaigning at the turn of the millennium. Stephen Harper, who unlawfully succeeded Mr. Day by accepting a kangaroo-style nomination to replace him, gave up the issue of abortion altogether. Now abortion does not even come up as an issue during a campaign.
So what choice does that potential voter have who is concerned about our land being continuously polluted with blood? What choice does he have in the face of it being certain that God will avenge the blood of innocent babes? May he vote for a politician who cares nothing about this pollution and the subsequent judgment that it must draw? One might say that a certain politician does care about the issue as much as some voters do, even though he says nothing against the evil. But what is caring worth and what does it amount to when the person who supposedly cares is silent and inactive about what he cares about? The potential voter might argue that a vote for the best of four bad politicians is the best he can do. But what message does that send except that the voter is okay with the pollution of murder and the judgment for murder that must surely come on account of it? Then the voter might argue that he could vote for the lesser of four evils and at the same time lobby against the pollution. But what message would that send? The politician who is voted for would reason that he has the vote already, and therefore he can continue on his course. By withholding his vote, the citizen has the following advantage: it is his only way of applying a censure and thereby showing all politicians that they are unworthy of his vote; and it is his only way of voting against abortion as a testimony to God. One might vote for a local politician just because that politician says he will bring the issue up whenever he can to the powers higher up. But that does not change the fact that this would be a vote for a party whose leader will not countenance the subject.
If a person votes while the abortion issue is not on the table, that person is agreeing that it does not have to be on the table. To politicians who come to our door, we should reason like so: “if you won’t campaign for the babes, why should we vote for you? A vote for you is a vote for status quo murder on a large scale.” With respect to this campaign, we could reason like so: “I cannot vote Green; I cannot vote Liberal; I cannot vote NDP; I cannot vote Conservative; I reserve my ballot for God.” Objection: “But God is not on the ballot.” Answer: “True, God is not on the ballot, but God will be at the judgment.” If a person cannot vote with a clear conscience before God, a person should not vote. Objection: “But if you don’t vote for Harper, Mulcair or Trudeau might be voted in.” Answer: “Even if Satan himself gets voted in because of my vote being withheld for conscience sake, still, I should not vote.” The prospect of abortion being judged by God should be sufficient to restrain every moral person from voting for politicians who are content to permit the mass murder of defenseless babes to go on. I suppose that an organization called Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada must be in favor of abortion. That site puts the number of abortions in Canada for 2013 at 82, 869. Hospitals must report, while clinics do not have to, it says there. So we have at least 82, 869 abortions for a single year in Canada, and probably many more. And some people are going to tell me that I should go and vote for a politician who cares nothing for this?! I will not vote; Christians should not vote; moralists should not vote; indeed, not one single person in Canada should vote! Voting for mass murder to continue on this scale is no way to honor a leader; it is no way to honor yourself; it is no way to honor Canada; it is certainly no way to honor babies and life; and it most certainly is no way to honor God!
If enough voters held back their votes, the tactic would begin to exert an influence. In fact, many citizens quit voting long ago on account of their politicians being immoral. Those who are not voting ought to make their reasons known, just as I am making my reason known today.
By withholding his vote for a moral reason, the citizen says that even if the greatest of four evils is voted in on account of his personal principle and tactic of not voting, yet he is free of guilt in the matter because he acted so in the interest of standing for, and insisting on, life, and he did so because God is the author of life and the Judge of those who kill. To vote for Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau, or May in 2015 is to vote for the pollution of abortion to go on because not one of these four will face that evil down. If the worst of these four is voted in, or anyone who might be second best, wickedness will be permitted to multiply and advance even more than it is doing so under Harper’s watch. That would be God’s way of allowing a rebellious nation to sink deeper into sin for its longstanding disobedience in order to receiving a more pregnant judgment in the future. The moral citizen, meanwhile, can pray that the righteous will be given strength and grace, either to escape the collateral damage, or to bear it faithfully. This nation, incidentally, is reaping the reward for its sins against the unborn already: by importing dangerous, lazy immigrants from failed states, for instance, who, it is vainly hoped, will provide revenue for an aging population, which it would have been much safer to rely on our own babes to supply.
What the moral citizen cannot do, in my opinion, is vote for a politician who is too cowardly to campaign for the abolition and prevention of murders that are presently and daily polluting our land. You do no honor to a king or leader by facilitating, through your vote, his conscience into becoming even more hardened to the evil of abortion than it already is. You honor him best by warning him most; you warn him most by demonstrating that he is not moral enough to vote for.