The Christian Vanguard

I have always been on board with the Never Trump movement. Most of us have been. It doesn't seem to be winning or losing any people, so, it's a pretty solid group. One issue those who want us to violate our conscience and vote against every principle that they themselves preached only two years ago hang above our heads is that of the Supreme Court. If Hillary is elected, we have no chance of getting a justice that will favor anything we stand for. We have a chance if Trump is elected. This is a horrible argument.  Think of it like a game of Russian Roulette. If you choose the gun Hillary hands you, you know that it is completely loaded. If you choose the gun Trump hands you, there is a chance that it isn't completely loaded. The better choice is Trump. Or maybe it is more like numbers. If Hillary is elected, there is a 0% chance that we will have favorable justices. If Trump is elected, there is a >0% chance we will have a favorable justice. So, Trump is the better ...

Say you are able to vote in a primary for both parties. You have your party, which gives you the choice between some really decent candidates, and the opposing party, which has some really evil people. The winners will face off in the general election. Will you also vote in the primary that is not your party? My hunch is yes, you will, and you will choose the opponent which is easiest to defeat, to better increase the chances of victory, or, in another light, to reduce the chances of you losing. No matter who your guy is, it seems to make sense that you want the easiest opponent.  Now, take a similar scenario except that you can no longer vote within your own party. Would you still vote for the person is who most likely to be an easier opponent? It seems so. If not, what is the difference? There are those who will say that "Voting for the lesser of evils is still voting for evil." This is to refuse to understand strategy. This idiotic slogan claims that the reason you fo...

I get annoyed when I hear fake conservatives try to distinguish themselves from their liberal counter-parts as being "principled" but they are, in reality, no such thing. And you hear a lot of politicians say the same, "We need to hold on to our conservative principles." I have a challenge for anyone who says this: what are those principles? I usually hear two things, which is fidelity to the constitution and encouraging a free market. But these are hardly principles. If fidelity to the constitution is what makes you a conservative, then it means there were no conservatives in the founding era prior to the drafting of the Constitution. There's no principle to be had there. And so it doesn't count as a principle. Principles are something like axioms, or certain truths that remain throughout history and place. Like natural law. That is why I call myself a natural law conservative. If I take an oath to the constitution and I find another document better suited...

There is a really stupid slogan that goes around in Republican circles that says, "Government is the problem." You hear variants like, "The bigger the government, the bigger the problem" or "the smaller the government, the smaller the problem" and you have these so called conservatives say stupid things like this, but they aren't thinking. What this entails is anarchy, literally. If the problem is government, then if you want to get rid of the problem, you want to get rid of government. But no conservative believes this. And conservatives who say this have no principles. And that's no conservative. 

The following is a post I made on my Facebook when I was following and commenting on the last Republican debate.  I've never understood this, "Oh, but minorities are disproportionately affected [by this law] because they get caught breaking the law more often than non-minorities." Okay and? Look, say 100 people run a red light. Say that 50 are black and 50 are white. All fifty black people are caught and arrested. 25 white people are caught and arrested. Why would you be upset that all black people were caught? That is just. What is unjust is that 25 people were not caught, who happened to be white. That 25 white people were not caught does not mean black people suffered an injustice.

Libertarians want liberty. Or, the right to do something. The right to own a gun, to smoke pot, to have gay marriage. But this is wrong, if not incoherent. Rights are grounded in natural law. The 10th Amendment reflects this, the Declaration of Independence recognizes this, and St. Paul in his letter to Romans concerning homosexuality employs it. So, we have certain goods for our being. It is good to drink for that is necessary to stay alive. Hence, I'm entitled to water if I ever need it. Sure, you may also have the right to property, but your right to property is not so strong for it to be absolute, and in this case doesn't trump my right to your water if I'm dying of thirst, for it is wrong to die. So, if rights come from natural law, and natural law is that which is good, we cannot have a right to something that is bad. We can debate the merits of whether a thing is bad or not, but if it's the case that something is bad and contrary to the natural law, like suicide...

The issue of immigration and what to do with illegal immigrants is one that I have avoided for years. I am a Mexican-American (though I would prefer it if you would just call me an American) living in Southern California, and I feel like most people expect an opinion about the issue from me. I don't have one, and I really don't want one. Expecting something of me based on that makes me uncomfortable. Unfortunately, I now see the issue as an unavoidable one, and since people have started asking me about it again, I have begun to put some serious thought into it. The following letter I think provides an adequate enough foundation. The question was asked to me, Do I think God sees illegal immigrants as being in sin? This is how I responded. 

I saw “Bowling for Columbine” a long time ago. I bought it at Wal-Mart because it was on sale for like three bucks. I had purchased it during the time in my life where I had already left behind communism, but wasn’t completely a conservative. I was free-market on most of the fiscal policy issues, and only partially in line with the republicans on the social issues (I supported the death penalty, “torturing”, our presence in the middle east [I believed a war with militant Muslims was attractive for an atheist] and was pro-gun [basically all the violent stuff lol!], but was for abortion and same-sex marriage). And so while I thought the documentary was crap, an off the cuff comment, or slogan, about health care had me thinking.

The story of Babel in the Bible used to confuse me. I didn’t understand what was going on that was so bad and I never understood why God did what he did. I never found the explanation that God realized that if men were to be united in such a powerful way, they would be united in evil, a plausible explanation. Whether we are united in evil or divided in evil, we’re evil nonetheless, so destroying B abel would be inconsequential. But wrapping up my course in Political philosophy, I think such an explanation is plausible now. Having a one world government is scary to us now. Why? Because it so often leads to tyranny. We ought to have, like we do in the US, a separation of powers. “Ambition counteracts ambition”, “if men were angels” , etc. Because human nature is corrupted, we cannot centralize it. If it is divided, peace can be achieved. That is why God divided the people. Application: the story of Babel shows us that God favors a government that has a separation of power...

I used to think that Christians ought to take part in the political process was a given. I have previously written about the permissibility versus impermissibility of voting for Mitt Romney, a Mormon. After all, Christians and governments are seeking to influence the same thing: the public. Christians are called to make disciples of all nations, and governments rule all nations. From this, a Christians should at least be conscious of the kind of government he is in. To my surprise however, many Christians in my acquaintance want nothing to do with government, and they attempt to cite Holy Scripture to defend their position. There are numerous problems with this.

Mitt Romney is the currently the GOP candidate for President of the United States. It is quite plausible that he could be President. Mitt Romney is also a Mormon. Why is Romney’s Mormonism something to take note of?