• /
  • /
  • Jesus Politics: Why Christians Should Vote For Jill Stein – By Candace Datz

Jesus Politics: Why Christians Should Vote For Jill Stein – By Candace Datz

Zack —  October 22, 2012 — 33 Comments

 

 

Today’s first guest post in the Jesus Politics synchroblog comes to us from Candace Datz. Candace is a married worship leader living in Colorado Springs, CO. She’s currently a History/Political Science student who wants to work with reconciliation projects in the Middle East. Make sure you check out Candace’s blog The Thoughts I Think and follow her on Twitter.

 

Well, here it is – my take on why I will be voting for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, for president this November. As a church employee, let me just say that these opinions are entirely my own and are not reflective of my church or its leadership. They probably wouldn’t agree with me anyway. :)

First, I should tell you why I’m voting for a third-party candidate in the first place, as most people seem to have a problem with that issue more than the actual person I’m voting for. From my perspective, the two-party system is broken. That seems obvious. Partisan politics has divided the country in a way that is almost incomprehensible. Each of the mainstream parties has, essentially, the same view on so many things, and yet they seem absolutely incapable of finding compromise or a way to work together. Now let’s be clear: I have no idealistic visions of Jill Stein actually winning the presidential race. Some argue that because of that, my vote is a waste and I should cast my vote for one of the traditional parties. I couldn’t agree less. A vote for Obama or Romney is a vote for the status quo. It’s a vote for the rich. It’s a vote for mediocrity. I say this as an individual who voted for Bush in ’04 and Obama in ’08. I’ve been registered as both a Democrat and a Republican. And I’m done with the same ol’ same ol’. I have decided that in order to send a message with my vote, I will be voting for something different. A completely different view of what America could be. A vote for social responsibility, restorative justice, and nonviolence. That brings me to the big moral reasons of why I’m specifically voting for the Green Party.

Environment

This may seem to be the most obvious thing, since it is the Green Party, but, as a Christian, the environment means a lot to me. I see God giving Adam the responsibility in Eden to care for the earth, to cultivate and tend it, even to name the animals. As a follower of Jesus I see my job on earth to work towards his goal of the restoration of all things. That means taking care of the earth. I see Jill Stein as having the best understanding of that responsibility.

People

Jill actually cares about and works with normal people. Just a couple of months ago, she was even arrested for participating in a sit in at Fannie Mae, fighting for a just resolution to the foreclosure crisis. Her campaign is not accepting any corporate donations, as she does not want to be tied to the desires of big companies or Political Action Committees. Her passion for people is obvious in her positions on workers’ rights, healthcare, and education. I believe that her grassroots, bottom-up approach to the world is what is needed in this day and age.

Nonviolence

Jill has one of the most incredible, peace focused statements for foreign policy that I have ever seen. I’m a foreign policy junkie, and, after studying the dismal history of American interventions in foreign situations (e.g., CIA overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected Mossadeq, arming of jihadists in Afghanistan to fight a proxy war with the Soviets, political assassinations, drone attacks, etc.), I’m more convinced than ever that the American military has been a force of destruction in the world, not a force for good. As a follower of Jesus I must object to these policies that have the direct result of disrupting and destroying the lives of human beings. The poor and marginalized, women and children are the ones typically carrying the brunt of the consequences of military actions. Jill’s vision for nuclear disarmament and a diplomatically focused foreign policy, instead of a militarily focused one, is a vision that I can get behind.

In conclusion, let me just say that while my vote is shaped by my faith, I do not believe that there is one “Christian” way to vote. Each individual is responsible for their own vote. And this might be a bit off topic, but my worldview is firstly shaped by my identity as a member of the Kingdom of God, which requires me to see every individual as a valuable member of society, no matter their race, nationality, sexuality, gender, etc. My worldview is not primarily shaped by my identity as an American. I love this country, but my political framework is centered around my identity as a member of the human race. Therefore, the American military is not sacred to me, nor is the Constitution, or a certain political party. People are sacred, because they are created in the image of God. My political decisions are therefore based on which candidate/party/etc I believe is going to do the best things for the whole world. Not just America.

Also, Jill’s a woman and so is her VP nominee Cheri Honkala. I think it’s time to give the women of America a chance at running the country.

 

So what do you think? Is Jill Stein the candidate Christians should be voting for this election? Leave a comment and let me know what you think. REMEMBER: It’s ok to argue your point vigorously, but do so with civility so that your comment doesn’t disappear from the thread.

 

In Uncategorized
permalink

Zack

Posts

  • Wyatt Roberts

    I took a survey some months back that indicated my views were most consistent with Jill Stein. I didn’t know much about her then, and still don’t. Interesting article, though. Thanks!

    • http://twitter.com/candacedatz Candace Datz

      Wyatt, you can (obviously) find more information about her from her website, but also Democracy Now! has done a great series called Expand the Debate, during which some of the third party candidates respond to the same questions being asked of Romney and Obama. Those can all be found on the Democracy Now! website.

  • Joshua Shope

    Great article, and I think Stein is probably the most Christian of the candidates in her policies. You’ll see in my post on Tuesday why I’m not voting for her, but I do like her a lot. And it’s nice to see progressive Christians like you thinking about politics in a serious way. Way to start off the week!

  • http://www.anirenicon.com/ Allen O’Brien

    With the risk of sounding like a “single issue voter,” I have to say that every political test I’ve taken has pitted me with Jill and I love what she stands for- with the exception of abortion. I wish there were candidates like her that were pro-life, but I’ve yet to find one.

    • ZackHunt

      I struggle with that issue too, but in a slightly different way. I’m passionately pro-life (across the board), but also think that abortion (for medical reasons) should be, in the words of Bill Clinton, “safe, legal, and rare.” Shockingly (sarcasm intended) most candidates seem to only be able to take one extreme position or another, so I’m left without anyone I can really point to and say, “Hey, that’s my guy (or gal)!”

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=572717441 Amy Tracy

      I completely agree, Allen. The tests I’ve taken have put me in Stein’s camp, too. At the same time, I believe abortion is a clear human rights issue. I agree with the adage that the measure of a nation is how it treats the least and most vulnerable. A consistent pro-life worldview makes it difficult for me to cast a vote for her. Yet I hear Candace on this point – and I agree with her to a degree. Who is the most pro-life across the board? Is it Stein? Not certain what I’ll do in the end.

  • Concerned for America

    WHY A CHRISTIAN SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR JILL STEIN

    From her platform:

    Dr Jill Stein is pro-choice and supports all forms of birth control. This includes access to an abortion, the plan B morning after after pill, and other options regardless of age (for the pill). In supporting universal health care, Dr Stein notes that reproductive health cannot be separated from overall health and therefore should be covered under a single-payer system.In December of 2011, Dr Stein was critical of the Obama administrations actions to limit the coverage of the morning after pill, staing that it should be available regardless of age or prescription.In January of 2012, Dr Stein noted in a debate that religion of some people should not be able to dictate the availablity of reproductive care for others. She asserted that allowing employers to select a health care plan that did not cover abortion or other reproductive items was in effect allowing that person’s religion or fiscal concerns to dictiate the health care of the employee.The official Green Party platform for 2012 promotes an abortion on demand system where a woman is able to obtain an abortion regardless of age or ability to pay. The age of the fetus is not addressed and support or opposition for partial-birth abortion is not covered in the literature.

    • http://twitter.com/candacedatz Candace Datz

      While I understand your concerns about this point, I cannot justify boiling my political understanding down to one subject. Taking a consistently “pro-life” view has brought me to the point of voting for Jill, because she is against the death penalty, for restorative justice, against war and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, etc. Neither Obama or any Republican president, or a Republican Congress for that matter, has done much to address the abortion issue, therefore I doubt that Romney would take any action on it either. And from a restorative, holistic approach, one could argue that Stein’s economic plans to focus on poverty could have a dramatic effect on abortion, single parents, etc.

      • http://twitter.com/GioSafari Gio Andollo

        Excellent reply :D

      • Concerned for America

        Unfortunately this is something I have been frustrated with as well. The problem is that when people are Pro Murdering Human Beings (lets call it for what it is, the law calls it this when someone kills a pregnant woman and her baby- double homicide) So we have someone that is Pro Murdering Human Beings, Pro Genocide and we choose to “look past it” because she is good for the environment, or for poverty. Really? Would we look the other way at the Holocaust because Hitler was on a mission for every german to own an affordable car the volkswagen. I know I am talking bluntly here, but this is no different, its just the genocide is taking place in women’s wombs against the most marginalized and vulnerable in our society. The way our society is heading, I fear the mental and physically handicapped are next….I pray not, but that is why this is THE issue of our time.

        • http://lukelivingthetension.blogspot.com/ Luke Harms

          “Pro-murdering human beings.” See, if we accept your definitions here for the sake of argument, the problem with this particular polemic is that the exact same rationale can be used to ciriticize those who are pro-war, pro-death penalty, ambivalent about poverty and environmentally irresponsible. The proximity from murderer to victim certainly doesn’t eliminate moral culpability, so supporting candidates who hold those policies would be morally equivalent to supporting a pro-choice candidate. Your position hardly carries the kind of moral superiority you’re claiming.
          Pragmatically speaking though, given that it is, far and away, more likely that abortion will remain legal in the United States for the forseeable future, then the primary question is how do we reduce the number of abortions in the context of this reality? The answers, as reasearch has shown, are education and access to birth control. How does your candidate stand on those issues?

          • Concerned for America

            What is the Just Cause for abortion?

            There can be a just cause for war, and the death penalty.
            The environment and poverty are not even close to the same level.

            It is sickening how we try to skirt around this issue, especially as supposedly being Christians. The sanctity of life is primary social justice issue. There is no reason for murdering babies in the womb, We have thousands of parents ready to adopt children, parents who have to go to Africa and Russia to find a child, and so why are we not encouraging adoption? I guess it is because a 9 month pregnancy is inconvenient for the person who chose to have sex when they were not ready to face the consequences.

            There is no just cause for abortion, there never can and never will be. The life in the womb did nothing and can do nothing to deserve a death sentence.

            Chalking this up as anything else is intellectually dishonest, and with 2 supreme court justices being appointed this term, it is extremely important that we continue this fight. The truth is that if America had a moral compass anymore, regardless of what the supreme court said, Abortion would be illegal, or highly restricted instead of a murder free for all like it is now.

          • http://lukelivingthetension.blogspot.com/ Luke Harms

            Some 92 million children died worldwide as a result of living in poverty from 2000-2010. Dismissing their plight so readily certainly seems to fit into the category of “intellectually dishonest.”
            We could do this sophomoric back and forth, tit for tat all day long, but here’s the fundamental question, and it’s a simple one: do you care more about abortion being illegal or about reducing the number of abortions?

          • Concerned for America

            Poverty is a horrible problem that Christians need to work to change and fix. You know social welfare used to be run by the church, until the state took it over and now it is not a real good system, surprise. It says in James 1:27 “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”

            Last I checked it was not dictated by the government that we cannot help and serve the poor, so give up the iPod, Escalade, and Hawaiian Vacations and go do it!

            Unfortunately, the government has made abortion not just legal, but encourage it as a woman’s right to kill a baby growing inside her, giving no concern for the rights of the life within her.

            All of that said, I thought we were talking about American Politics and the future president of the United States.

            In the United States in a given year, about 9,000 children die as a result of poverty.

            In that same year approximately 1.2 million babies are aborted intentionally by their mothers.

            That means that the children dying from poverty in the United States account for 0.8% of the children killed by abortion.

            Again, I ask why are we overlooking 1.2 million lives?

          • http://lukelivingthetension.blogspot.com/ Luke Harms

            The state has “taken over” social warfare because the church has completely and utterly failed to carry out its mission to the marginalized in society, and a “not real good” system is probably better than nothing for those who are suffering. But that’s a different discussion for a different day.
            I asked a specific question that you avoided answering: what is more important, reducing the number of abortions or making aborion illegal?

          • Concerned for America

            “because the church has completely and utterly failed” Yep, and who is the church, you and I and everyone else. If the church has failed it is because we have failed. Because we have focused on treasures on earth at the expense of others. Take some ownership!

            As far as your “question” It is more important to make abortion illegal, here is my reasoning.

            If murder (of born humans) was legal, and we were debating that, of course we would want to do all we could to decrease the number of murders. Maybe we could counsel people, and show them pictures of humans running and playing, and maybe we could even show them pictures of murdered bodies and the devastation caused to families in the aftermath, but at the end of the day if we held firm to belief that it was a persons right to murder if they chose, but we should encourage murder to be “safe (maybe gun education so you don’t hurt yourself) legal, and rare, then we would only marginally change the murder rate.

            See the only way to really change this issue is to regulate it through laws.

          • ZackHunt

            I keep meaning to ask you this and keep forgetting about it. :)

            In the case of a mother’s life, when either the mother or baby or even both will die if the baby is carried to term, what do you suggest is the appropriate response and why? And before you respond, please keep in mind that regardless of your decision you are choosing to terminate life.

          • Concerned for America

            That is the only time I personally would say there is a just cause for abortion, as both have an equal right to life, yet one is dependent on the other to live.

            You are right in that this is a case of terminating a life for a just cause. Likewise the death penalty can be used to terminate life for a just cause (although I don’t agree personally with the death penalty as it is in our country), and further life can be taken in war for a just cause.

            Terminating a life because you “didn’t mean to get pregnant” or because “it is inconvenient” or because the baby “might be disabled”, or because “you can’t afford it” is selfish and unjust.

          • http://lukelivingthetension.blogspot.com/ Luke Harms

            With respect, you don’t know me. You don’t know where I invest my time and treasure. If you’d come to my house, meet my family, and eat at my table, maybe you’d see that I try to take ownership for the church’s failures every day. But then again, it’s much easier to just throw stones from behind a wall of internet anonymity.

            Now, I’m a bit confused by your answer, because from the perspective you’ve espoused here, the sole purpose of making abortions illegal seems like it *should be* to reduce the number of abortions. So if that is not the case, and outlawing abortion is more important, then I’m force to ask, to what end? For what purpose if not to reduce the number of abortions? We might argue that it *should* be illegal *because* it is morally wrong, but that is (obviously) not a value that is held universally, and it’s difficult to make that case without relying on an explicitly religious justification (which is obviously problematic in its own right).

            The point, of course, is that from virtually *any* coherent perspective, all roads lead back to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and the subsequent number of abortions being the primary motivator for those on *both sides* of the argument, and there is not a preponderance of evidence to suggest that outlawing abortion would, in fact, reduce the number of abortions significantly. However, there *is* a preponderance of evidence that demonstrates that education, economic equality, and access to birth control are directly related to a significant reduction in the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies. If that’s what we’re all *really* concerned about, then why not focus our effort there instead of spending all of our time each trying to demonize and denigrate the other side?

          • Concerned for America

            No I do not know you, and my “personal statements” in the first paragraph above, were not so much aimed at you (because I know nothing about you) but at the position you seem to be taking. Sorry if that was offensive, it was not my intent.

            The goal is to reduce abortions. You claim that making abortion illegal will not reduce the number of abortions. I would love to read a study on this if you could provide it, because I am pretty sure that is just a liberal talking point.

            Second you claim that sex education and contraception will not just reduce abortions, but reduce it more than making abortion illegal would.

            I also find this extremely difficult to believe, but would love to see any evidence indicating this as a fact, and not a liberal talking point.

            Thanks

  • Jim

    I plan on voting for Jill Stein and not so much because I agree with her politics, which I do mostly. I’m voting for her because she is not Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.

    Thanks for the article.

  • Wasted vote

    lame

    • http://twitter.com/candacedatz Candace Datz

      Thank you for your contribution to this conversation.

      • ZackHunt

        You took the (sarcastic) words right out of my mouth.

      • Duh-Niece

        I love knowing my daughter’s sarcastic tone in writing.

  • Andrew Carmichael

    Thank you for this. I am thinking strongly about casting my vote for Stein/Honkala and it is encouraging to hear that others also see in them a positive alternative to the status quo. While I understand the concern about abortion within the party’s platform, I think you made a strong response that being pro-life is not only about one’s stand on abortion and neither of the main parties, and particularly the one that claims to be pro-life, actually support an overall agenda that affirms that value of all life.

  • ZackHunt

    I wasn’t familiar at all with Jill Stein before I read Candace’s post (and took a “who should you vote for” survey). Regardless of whether any of us would vote for her, I think her candidacy/platform/etc. should make all of us frustrated and annoyed that the election is presented simply as a choice between only 2 candidates and therefore only those 2 candidates get any airtime/coverage/get to participate in the nationally televised debates. I understand the reality of a third party candidate’s chances of winning, but I think that reality would be significantly changed if they were treated with the same seriousness and respect as the candidates from the 2 major parties. If America really is a democracy, then it seems to me that allowing for at least another voice or 2 should be a given.

  • http://twitter.com/jonesdavide David Jones

    Like many of you, I too took an online test and lined up with Jill Stein on most of the issues without knowing who she was at the time. As for abortion, it’s not about it being legal or illegal. it is about what the Church is doing to care for the members of society who would consider abortion. It is about making local adoptions more accessible. Abortion is not an issue for the government, but it is the Church’s. That is why I do not have a problem voting for Jill Stein; the Church should make her stance on abortion a moot point.

  • http://twitter.com/Dissenta Dissenta

    This statement struck me as especially true as I understand the teachings of Jesus: “Stein is probably the most Christian of the candidates in her policies.”

    As to a woman’s right to choose, this to me is not a religious issue; choice has been granted by the Supreme Court as an option to be “safe, legal and rare.” Reproductive choice is a woman’s personal decision, just as her religious choice is her personal decision. Most important, Candace Datz sums it up perfectly for me when she says that Jill is “pro-life” in the best senses (plural) of the term in her positions across the board.

    Candace makes many excellent points about Dr Stein’s positions on the environment, her empathy for people (she’s a medical doctor and mother of two grown sons), and on the spectrum of her non-violent positions and nuclear disarmament. Climate change too. These are all profoundly important to me, too, and they all need action now. We have no more time. Since the commercial newsmedia have not been covering her (or any of the third parties) very much, these qualities have seldom been highlighted and so I am grateful to Ms Datz for bringing them up so I can share them with my friends and family.

    I am proud of Jill and her running mate for standing up for us on the principles of fair foreclosures and the important democratic principle of free speech and fairness in debates, esp when their names will be on 85% of all US ballots. Jefferson would be upset that we hardly have an “educated electorate” when so many people ask, “Who’s Jill Stein? Never heard of her!”

    She and Cheri remind me of great leaders in the realm of social justice like Bonhoffer, Niebuhr and King who stood up for human rights. They are moral figures, unusual for American politics, Honkala an anti-poverty advocate. I would frankly expect that had Dr Stein not chosen the medical profession (Harvard Medical School), she might have become a religious leader.

    I hope she finds a place to continue her work after the election, especially to promote her concept of a Green New Deal. If we like it, we can send the link direct to the next president and to House & Senate members. Here’s the link: http://www.jillstein.org/summary_green_new_deal

    Pump this link through the circulatory system of American political ideas like a rhythmic heart beat, every two or three months. Keep the heartbeat going until we begin to revive our great nation to it potential for life. She’s just the “doctor of politics” the doctor ordered.

    I had already decided to vote for Jill Stein but Ms Datz has reminded me how consistent my decision is with my faith. Thank you so much.

  • Pingback: Jesus Politics: The Wrap Up

  • Pingback: Political Theology Posts Around The Web | TheoNerd

  • Pingback: God wanted Mr. Obama - Page 6 - Christian Forums

  • Pingback: I'm glad Barak Obama won - Page 14 - Christian Forums