A missionary I know, Cal Zastrow, said, “If the primary goal of voting is winning, instead of being a faithful witness for Christ, then all kinds of evil grows.” I believe that as Christians, more than being patriotic to our nation, we are called to be faithful ambassadors of the Kingdom of God, and to further that kingdom. We do this, in part, through involvement in earthly matters like grocery shopping, like changing diapers, like giving food to the poor, and like voting.

This week, respected theologian Wayne Grudem endorsed Donald Trump for president in an article, “Why Voting for Donald Trump is a Morally Good Choice”. A friend shared the article on Facebook. I admit that I was shocked at how much I disagree with such an influential evangelical Christian. I was overwhelmed by how many things seemed 1) unsubstantiated; 2) rational leaps; and most grievingly, 3) misinterpretations of Scripture. There were other things that may be qualified as more differences of opinion. These do not surprise me; I am used to being in a minority in what I believe about how government should function. For a brief discussion of these things, see Footnote [1].

The first category of concern, things that seem to me to be unsubstantiated, mostly fall into three subsections. They are either wild speculations or what I believe to be delusions of fear. Most of these have to do with the future. The third subsection is ignoring relevant truths.

The treatment of third parties at least excludes some truth: the truth of why our political system allows third parties; the truth of what some third party candidates (with far more demonstrable integrity and intelligence than Trump or Hillary) have said they will do as president[2],[3]; the truth of history, that parties have fallen and risen[4], including the Republican Party which was a new, third party when Lincoln was elected president[5]; the truth that the reason we don’t presently see third parties as viable is because we have consistently refused to vote for third party candidates who better represent us; and the truth that votes for third parties have impacts on future elections.

This year’s election is not an unusual opportunity. Every year there is an evil candidate, or rather many evil candidates (for many third parties put forward evil candidates), which we the people have an opportunity of defeating. Sort of: I can try to persuade you to help me to defeat evil. I can pray. And I can vote. It may not actually be within my power to defeat the Democrat or any other candidate.

Grudem believes that Trump sincerely wants what is best for America. I am not in a position to say that this is false. I don’t have evidence that Trump is plotting the demise of the United States. I get a different impression, though, that Trump actually wants to further his own interests and to build his own ego. I am wondering what evidence Dr. Grudem has for his belief in Trump’s motives.

Will the election be close? (If he didn’t believe the election will be close, would the arguments in his article be the same?) We’re three months from Election Day. Polls of the popular vote, even when factoring in the Libertarian and Green Party candidates, show Hillary Clinton neck and neck with Donald Trump[6]. But elections in the United States are not decided by the popular vote. They are decided by electors in each state. News outlets[7],[8], analyzing polling data and voting patterns in previous cycles, have Hillary in the lead by about 50 electoral votes likely to go to her. Estimates have her with around 200, Trump with around 150, and around 180 votes from a number of states too close to guess. But if you look at the breakdown of how strong each candidate is in the votes analysts think they are likely to get, you can see that Hillary has far more votes in the “almost certain” and “very likely” categories, whereas about half of Trump’s fall into the “leans towards” Trump description. If third party campaigns are somewhat successful, as many Republicans fear, more of the independent voters will go to the Libertarian or other conservative parties than would be persuaded to vote Republican, and Hillary’s lead could be even bigger.

Given the extent of the criminal behavior already documented on Hillary Clinton, without producing prosecution or sufficient public outrage[9], it is very unlikely that “additional shocking email disclosures” would have any new effect. Obama has endorsed her[10] and has nothing to lose (except before God) from standing behind her and abstaining from prosecution.

The article gives a description of liberalism, “pro-abortion, pro-gender-confusion, anti-religious liberty, tax-and-spend, big government…” The author applies it to Clinton and Obama, but the definition can just as honestly be applied to Trump[11]. Therefore, we will not defeat “that kind of liberalism” by voting for Trump. He is that kind of liberal. He may practice it to a different degree, but the essence is the same.

The judicial supremacy described in this article may be a dominant theory, but it is not true, constitutionally speaking. We should hold judges accountable for the subversion they commit by usurping the rule of law (the US Constitution) and exceeding their jurisdiction. Impeachment could moderate their extremism. And it could remove actual vigilante judges from office. Then the activism wouldn’t be locked-in. States and presidents, especially, are obligated to obey the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution, and there is an argument to be made for states and executives to defy broad applications of specific decisions by the courts. That is, Obergefell, for example, wouldn’t have to apply to any actual laws (court rulings are not laws) or states or cities or policies that were not included in the original case being brought. This is the position that Alabama Justice Roy Moore seems to be most recently in trouble for[12]. There are also third party presidential candidates[13], [14] in the current election who agree with at least some of these answers to the Supreme Court argument, and would be willing to act accordingly. I do appreciate Grudem bringing these problems to light, even if I disagree with his submit-to-the-corrupt-system solution.

Grudem mentions several close votes on the Supreme Court over the past 30 years, such as the Partial-Birth Abortion Act[15] and Hobby Lobby’s conscience and religious freedom case against being forced by Obamacare to pay for employees’ abortifacient contraceptives. Some of these have gone in ways we agree with, submitting to the clear language of the Constitution and upholding liberty. Many significant others have not. Republican-appointed judges have a long history of assenting to egregious Supreme Court decisions. Four of five Supreme Court justices giving us the decision in Utah v. Strieff[16], weakening the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution’s protections against unreasonable searches[17], were Republican-appointed[18]. Republican justices have given us Roe v. Wade[19], upheld Obamacare[20], and decided Obergefell[21] (attempting to mandate homosexual marriage).

I don’t see how a “right to abortion” could be found in the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, nor how it would be substantially different from the Supreme Court rulings already dominating our political climate. Groups seeking to end abortion are seeking to have Roe v. Wade overturned. Some are doing this, not by increasing laws that would regulate abortion[16], but by using the wording of the Constitution, including the Equal Protection Clause. These laws include so-called “Personhood” legislation[22] and the “Sanctity of Life Act”[23]. With an unaccountable judiciary, the court is likely to strike such laws down. They are, perhaps, slightly more likely to “with one decision” remove all abortion-regulating laws from our country, as Dr. Grudem fears. I don’t see how a more liberal court would be much more likely to do this than the court we already have, or the one we had when Roe was decided.

In the history of our country, few significant Supreme Court decisions have been overturned by that court[24]. Fashions have shifted. The Constitution has been amended. Wars have been fought. These have affected the application of some rulings. Christians want Roe v. Wade to be overturned. We want justices who uphold justice and the rule of law. Republicans have not given us such radically righteous justices. It is an extremely unlikely hope that Donald Trump (who is more liberal than previous Republican presidents) would appoint enough justices who would oppose the trend of popular opinion (our country is more liberal than ever) on abortion, and overturn Roev. Wade. I cannot find such a wild speculation to be even a considerable justification for voting for a man who disregards morality (unashamed adultery[25], owning a strip club[26], lying[11], essentially stealing[11]) and justice and the rule of law (promotion of unconstitutional laws, executive orders[27], and policies) himself.

At multiple points, Dr. Grudem indicates that he is a proponent of state-regulation of things like marriage and abortion. On both of these issues I believe he is wrong. Under the United States Constitution, Article IV: Section 1[28], separate states must honor the laws of other states. If Massachusetts “marries” same-sex partners, then Connecticut is obligated to consider the couple married if they visit or even relocate there. Thus marriage ought not to be excluded from the jurisdiction of the federal government. Regarding abortion, the Constitution requires[29], “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Thus the federal government also has a responsibility to enforce this part of the Constitution, taking only an oversight role if the states are in compliance. States allowing abortion are not in compliance. The solution to the immoral and unjust status of our laws is not just to have Supreme Court decisions return authority to the states. We have a bigger problem.

Many of the threats to our religious liberty are not coming from courts, but from private businesses or from other branches of government. Trump, if he were to be elected as our executive, is sympathetic to the homosexual agenda[30], at least, and would no doubt be influenced by that perspective when “executing” his office. That is, we wouldn’t need a liberal Supreme Court to infringe our rights; the president (whose power via executive order has gone basically unchallenged for decades) would be committing the very trespasses we’re afraid of the court for.

Even if I prove so wrong, and Trump is electable, and Trump does nominate an honest and wise and selfless judge, and the judge passes the scrutiny of the Senate to have the appointment confirmed, and if the court can hear and rule on cases in such a way as to reign in the courts – we will still have the problem of a lazy, impotent Congress and a largely-unchecked executive branch (the latter of which would likely be exacerbated by a Trump presidency as by a Clinton one – Trump has promised to use executive orders to accomplish his will[27]).

While the argument that historically, politicians have not “gone back on most of what [they have] promised to do, especially on issues that are crucially important in the election,” might be accurate (and I have doubts even about this), it would be hard to apply to Donald Trump for two reasons. The first is that he is demonstrably a liar[11]. And the second is that he has, in this one campaign, made many contradictory “promises” about what he will do. It actually seems incredibly gullible to let a politician take many possible positions that could appeal to different constituencies, and to assume the one he’ll actually faithfully come through on is the position that you prefer.

Since the article focuses on the issue of the Supreme Court, let me here briefly address the things that Trump has said about the court during this presidential campaign. Early on, Trump suggested that his sister would make a “phenomenal” appointment to the Supreme Court. She’s already a federal judge, and she’s not a conservative[31]. Afterward, he said he was joking[32]. Then, he said he would release a list of 5-10 names of potential Supreme Court appointees, and guarantee that, if president, he would pick from that list[33]. Then he released a list of 11 names[34]. Within days of publishing this heralded list, he said he was not guaranteeing that he would appoint a judge from the list[35]. There is also the chance that he would attempt to appoint one, and then back down at the least resistance from the Senate, and appoint someone else.

Trump has also taken confusing positions on Israel. Dr. Grudem says that Trump has promised to vigorously defend Israel. In this same campaign, he has also said that he will remain neutral[36] on Israel’s dispute with Palestine. But a top advisor has also said that Trump might be against a two-state solution[37]. On the other hand, and in contradiction to the fearful portrayal of “facts” that Grudem’s article gives, we have decades of speeches and actions by Hillary[38],[39] that, even if we don’t fully trust or agree with them, distance her from Obama’s snubbing of Israel. Grudem’s only evidence that Hillary would be worse than Donald on Israel is that Hillary worked for and is of the same political party as Obama. She is, however, also married to President Bill Clinton, of the same party, whose treatment of Israel[40],[41] was very different from Obama’s[42].

My second concern was about Wayne Grudem’s reasoning. If he has a way of connecting principles to his applications, he is not including them in the article. He asserts that it is OK to vote for someone bad (he calls them “flawed”) because he will do more good for the nation than his opponent. But he doesn’t justify why he believes this is OK. This is pragmatism. I am not opposed to we humans evaluating the world in order to figure out what would be most effective – so long as, in the flow-chart of decision-making, we consider those things after we have determined if we could do them without committing an unrighteous act. A good end does not make the “means” moral.

Grudem believes Trump will do the most good for the nation. Some of this is founded in conservative policies. Some is founded in speculation (particularly on the power and goodness of the Supreme Court under Trump). Some is based on subjective consideration of some things as more important than others. That is, if Trump is too busy doing harm to this nation to do it the good that his supporters hope, this reasoning might turn out to be inaccurate. I see potential, especially in foreign relations, for Trump to do great harm to our country, including getting us into wars resulting in American casualties. And in this one area, I believe that he may be likely to get us into bigger wars than Clinton would. There are also the more abstract ideas of the good or harm of having such a man as Trump represent conservatives and Christians in this country. What does that mean for the future of the Church here? What about the future of the Republican Party? What influence are conservatives and Christians left when we have demonstrated that we are willing to compromise – or worse, been led to justify the wickedness we are endorsing?

I am just as horrified that a vote may help Trump as I am that a vote may help Clinton. This whole line of reasoning, that a vote for a third party is actually helping the slightly-leading candidate, has redefined what a vote[43] means. A vote, to my mind, ought to be viewed as a contribution to collectively making a choice. Like every choice, one choice excludes another. If I say that my favorite flavor is chocolate, then I am automatically stating that vanilla and strawberry are not my favorites. A vote is an endorsement, approval, help. I am helping whom I vote for. And there will be all sorts of indirect consequences for what I choose.

Some sure indirect consequences of Christians not voting either Trump or Clinton are: Republicans will receive less votes than they believed themselves entitled to. The influence of third parties will be increased for the future. Speculating now, Republicans in the future may feel less confident that the liberal candidates they’ve been putting forward are electable. They may begin to reform, to shift to the more conservative end. Or the system might be too corrupt already. The powers behind the GOP may be too ideologically against justice, righteousness, the Constitution, economic liberty, and limited government to nominate conservative candidates, even if it might help the Republicans to gain power. In which case, enter speculation category number two: third parties. If lesser parties collectively get more attention and votes this election cycle, it strengthens the chances of any third party to gain momentum for the future. If one third party gets a lot more attention and votes, it makes that one all the more powerful for future elections. There are federal laws that give campaign money[44] to political parties based on if they reached a certain threshold of the popular vote in the previous election cycle. There are state laws that grant ballot access based on thresholds of votes in that state[45]. (In Colorado[46], I’m not sure if votes for president apply. The legal language is confusing to me.) There is market pressure for websites and television and radio to give attention to things their audiences care about. And votes indicate that we care. The whole election paradigm in the United States could be shifting.

Grudem suggests that we should see Trump’s vice presidential pick as an indicator of the trend of his policy shifts. Trump is, the author says, moving towards the conservative. While it is possible for a politician’s choice for vice president to reflect one’s values, in a man famed for “closing the deal”, I have a different hypothesis: that he picked someone who would appeal to a demographic that Trump hadn’t secured by his own personality and variously-contradicting policies. Maybe he picked Pence to lure conservative Republicans to vote for Trump. This would also be a tactic seemingly consistent with those of past presidential candidates.

The third point I raised is – coming from a theologian, seminary professor, and author of a much-used systematic theology – by far the most concerning. This is his use of Scripture in his argument. I am certainly interested in learning how the Bible applies to the decisions that we make in this life. So I am not objecting to a Christian leader making a statement about politics, or bringing the Bible into it. Rather, I am concerned by the hermeneutics he uses.

The first, general subject of biblical relevance is whether we can classify such a man as Donald Trump as “evil” or “wicked”, or if we should just remind ourselves that “nobody’s perfect” and consider him “flawed”, but decent as statesmen go. I will agree with Wayne Grudem when he says that Trump is flawed. I probably see more flaws than Dr. Grudem does, given the differences I have with him on policy issues. And I agree with Dr. Grudem’s list of character flaws in Donald Trump. I have some to add, as well[11]. He is a liar and an adulterer. He has, under cover of law (eminent domain for private use and intentional bankruptcy), stolen for his own gain. For such things the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience[47], and we are commanded to have nothing to do with these things[48].

I’m sure, like every evil dictator in history, that Trump has his good points. The Bible acknowledges that no one is righteous[49]. We have all fallen short[50]. But the Bible also categorizes people into righteous[51] and wicked[52], and warns against associating with the wicked. I especially commend to you the Proverbs[53] for a study of which type of people fall into which category.

Christians have been cleansed from the unfruitful works of darkness, and are therefore not classified as evil. Trump, by his own testimony[54], has not repented, has not sought God’s forgiveness. He has not been made clean by Jesus’ blood. So, he remains where his enumerated sins have put him, in the category of an evil man.

The Bible records what Moses’ father-in-law advised the Israelites about what kind of men to appoint to their government: “Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness….” – Exodus 18:21[55] Wayne Grudem does not mention this verse when he declares that despite the wicked character of Trump, voting for him is a morally good choice. Instead, he uses a passage from Jeremiah[56], about the Israelites seeking the welfare of the nation in which they are exiled. He then goes on to expound what he believes is meant by “welfare”: that which is most likely to bring the best results. And from there, he says that to vote for anyone who doesn’t have the best chance of beating evil and liberal and full of bad-policies Hillary is disobeying this instruction. He claims that this command to Israel is to give us the “overriding question” we must ask ourselves when voting. I wonder why the overriding question does not come from Exodus 18:21 that I quoted above, or Proverbs, or Romans[57]?

Perhaps the verse could be better interpreted as exhorting the Israelites to pray or warning the Jews against insurrection? Something like Timothy’s exhortation[58] for Christians to “pray for… all who are in authority, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence”?

How would we actually foretell what will be “most likely to bring the best results”? It is far less arrogant to decide things based on truth and what is morally good in itself – and maybe on direction straight from God – than to weigh out pros and cons of policies and possibilities and contingencies. Which items hold more weight as we’re weighing? National security? Jobs and taxes? Civil rights? Abortion? Marriage? Education? Good Christians can argue all day long on which should be weightier. But when we vote for president, I contend that is not what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to choose a leader (specifically one who will carry out the laws in existence, including the Constitution, to command our military in time of war, and to be the head of our foreign relations). And a nation is blessed when the ruler is righteous[59].

Which brings up an interesting point. What about God’s blessing? What about God’s power to deliver and guide and reform? If we’re being pragmatic about what is possible from a human standpoint, the way our government is in the habit of functioning (not even trying to exert ourselves to reign it in towards how it should, under the Constitution, be functioning) – then we’re leaving out part of the picture. Is God more likely to do good to a people who choose evil individuals for rulers? Or is God able to do much good with our faithful choices? If a remnant of Christians abides by its conscience and votes for actually good, actually qualified candidates – don’t you think God is more likely to show our whole nation mercy for our sakes?

Next, Wayne Grudem says that defeating Hillary would be a good thing to do, and that since supporting Trump is a way to do that, it is a good thing to do. According to James 4:17[60], he says, if we know a good thing to do and don’t do it, we’re sinning. But what is the intended application of the verse? It is good to do my dishes. It is good to do my friend’s dishes. It is good to be a sidewalk counselor outside abortion clinics. It is good to perform ultrasounds at a pregnancy center. It is good to pray. It is good to write books. It is good to preach the gospel. It is good to teach doctrine. It is good to rest. It is good to feast. It is good to fast. We cannot possibly do every good thing, all at once. Is defeating the Democrats the only good thing to do? In a given situation, we need to discern the good thing that God wants us to do. If we don’t do the good thing that God wants us to do, more so if we know what it is, it is sin.

But, as we’re discerning about the “right thing to do”, let’s take into consideration this other Scripture: “And why not do evil that good may come?–as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.” – Romans 3:8[61]So even if some good things could possibly result from our choices, the end does not justify the means. We have to figure out if the choice itself is evil or good.

There is a quote going around, attributed to C.H. Spurgeon, “Of two evils, choose neither.” To some Christians, what seems best to them is to not vote at all in this presidential election. Wayne Grudem believes this is also sin, citing Obadiah 1:11. The verse he quotes could be taken to mean that the Edomites did nothing at all, if it weren’t for the context[62], which describes them cheering for evil and aiding those who were attacking Israel. Cross reference to Psalm 137:7[63].

I don’t believe that abstaining from voting is inherently wrong. There are some times in the Bible where abstaining from something “good” is advised. Take, for example, Ecclesiastes 5:5: “It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay.” Or, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” – James 3:1 Or, “The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.” – Matthew 19:10-11 Or, “And the LORD said to Gideon, “With the 300 men who lapped I will save you and give the Midianites into your hand, and let all the others go every man to his home.”” – Judges 7:7 Or, “The LORD will fight for you, and you have only to be silent.”” – Exodus 14:14

So the questions we need to ask are: Has God given us the obligation to vote? Are we responsible for the outcome of the election even if we chose a morally acceptable but arguably less strategic vote? Is it wrong to choose an evil person as our ruler?

I would exhort everyone, especially Christians, to do all things out of faith and not out of fear. Or, at least, that we would fear God alone. Fearing Him, may we be diligent to find out the truth, to seek His perspective on these matters, and follow His will for us personally.

Update, October 9, 2016: Wayne Grudem removed his endorsement and published this apology, in light of recent revelations about Trump’s previous moral corruption: Trump’s Moral Character and the Election.

Footnotes:

[1] I disagreed with some of Grudem’s approvals of Trump’s policies and what he considers “most likely”. Below I mention some.

Lower taxes are good. They do not in themselves constitute a more just or more limited government. In fact, if unaccompanied by a budget a fraction the size of what it has been, lower taxes will only mean more borrowing, which is a hidden tax on the future[i]. It is also debatable whether graduated tax rates are just[ii].

I am not convinced that Trump would be good at diplomacy[iii],[iv],[v],[vi],[vii]. He may be convinced that he will not be manipulated, deceived, or out-strategized by Russia, Mexico, or Middle-Eastern nations, but I am not. Trump’s “tough guy” persona may be useful in standing up to bullies, or it may make our international representative into a bully himself. He has said that he would be in favor of having our military “go after the families of terrorists”[viii],[ix], and to, when fighting them, match the level of violence terrorists and ISIS use[x]. Victory at the cost of virtue is an unacceptable goal for me to support. I am also concerned that it would not be so easy to win a war (without making many more enemies globally) as Trump seems to think.

My personal belief is that Hillary is rather smart, and rather interested in maintaining whatever power she can get her hands on. Therefore, I think that she is actually less likely than Trump to get us into a big war or to alienate our allies. (And if she does, she’ll probably do it behind the scenes where no one will be able to verify it was her doing it.)

Both Trump and Hillary have taken contradictory positions on fracking during this campaign, which perhaps could be characterized at this time by saying that they believe in local decision-making about fracking[xi]. I would find it impossible, without prophetic revelation, to determine what each candidate will actually do for or against this energy issue.

Trump’s words about health insurance have not always sounded like they are entirely free-market solutions, even during this campaign season[xii]. Like many Republicans this year, he does support repealing – and replacing – Obamacare, apparently with a mixture of free market solutions and with some sort of forced “safety net” for the poorer people. Does this mean retaining an expansion of Medicaid? Something else? I believe there is a substantial difference between Hillary Clinton’s intentions for the health care industry, and that of Donald Trump. But it may be a difference of degree only. There are manifold problems with Obamacare. One of them is the individual mandate, what I still believe to be an unconstitutional imposition on our liberties (whatever the Supreme Court says about the penalty being a tax). The second is that the government funding for these programs is unconstitutional. They have no enumerated jurisdiction to be spending money on a private citizen’s health care. Trump’s plan would, presumably, deal with only one of these objections (the individual mandate).

From what I have read and heard, there seems to be some debate about whether Trump owes his so-called business success to his own abilities[xiii] to “solve problems and get things done.” Commentators have pointed out that Trump started with a substantial sum of money inherited from his father. They say that his fortune, if invested in mutual funds back in 1982, and left there, accruing, would be twice what he claims to have made it today through business acumen[xiv]. They mention that more than one of his business ventures has gone bankrupt. Some of them bring up his wielding of eminent domain for personal gain (abetted by corrupt politicians)[xv]; his use of bankruptcy (not paying bills) to pass off the risk of his investments to those providing the actual goods and services[xvi]; and that he is defendant in a lawsuit for fraud[xvii] in the case of Trump University. There is even some question as to whether Trump is as wealthy as he claims. All of these things cast doubt on the prudence of employing Trump to use his reputed problem-solving skills to tackle the big, nuanced problems the United States is facing.

[15] Some people who oppose abortion also oppose these incremental or compromise regulations. Some of these people believe all regulations are wrong or counterproductive[a], while others only oppose language in laws that implies that if you follow the regulations, “then you can kill the baby”[b].

I called this edition Pigfest on the Roof, and nominally themed it off of Fiddler on the Roof, inviting people to bring a traditional side dish or dessert for the feast. But we did not meet on the roof. Instead, we crammed 21 adults and 7 children into my living room, kitchen, and hallway. I thought about taking pictures this time, but I am simply not that organized!

In the 3 hours we met, the Pigfesters engaged in seven separate debates. Everyone behaved very well, which made moderating rather easier. The topics were interesting and well-engaged.

Because the government is anti-God and immoral, it would be immoral to pay taxes. Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. But what is Caesar’s? To how much was Caesar entitled? When the sitting executive’s face is not on our coin, as it was in Jesus’ day, is it still to be rendered to him? Does our personal judgment determine the justice of a tax? Is the income tax even legal? Is it rather unconstitutional? But the resolution was giving moral reasons for refusing to pay taxes, not legal ones. Must Christians submit to immoral governments? Is doing something morally wrong in the name of submission ok? In the Bible, children were wiped out with their fathers for the sin of the father, but we see no mention of justification because they were just doing what their fathers instructed. Do the layers of responsibility in the government protect us from culpability? That is, by paying taxes, are we not simply enabling the government to make good choices? That they make bad choices is a potential consequence of our trust. But, we are in a democracy where we the people choose our government. Some of our taxes do go to moral things, like roads. It was suggested that we look at the federal budget and deduct from our income tax a corresponding percentage to that which the government spends on immoral activities, and to enclose a letter of explanation. There is a doctrine of Lesser Magistrates, which discusses the conflict between obeying contradicting authorities or whether citizens are required to submit to authorities not established by the higher authority (in this case, the US Constitution). Jesus paid his taxes (the story of the coin in the fish).

Men have no biblical responsibilities towards their families. Paul had to have been married, so it is possible he abandoned his wife for the call of God. (This was highly debated.) If a man does not provide for his own family, he is worse than an infidel – the Bible. A husband is to love his wife as himself, which often includes caring for her needs. At this point, the contributor of the resolution conceded that the Bible did have some responsibilities listed for men towards their families, so the debate shifted to what they are: What is the definition of men? It includes fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers. Brothers were commanded in the Mosaic Law to take their sister-in-laws as wife if they were barren widows (law of the kinsman-redeemer). Lot is an example of a man whom we do not, in our culture, consider to have been a good father. He offered his daughters to the lustful crowd – and what’s up with that? But, was he a jerk, or was he righteous? Scripture is often addressed to fathers, which seems to be significant. Some of the sons of Jacob slaughtered a city to avenge their sister’s rape. Is that a responsibility? God is presented as a Father. Are we not to imitate Him? Does God have any obligations to His children? Obligations (and by implication, responsibilities) have to do with consequences. When God takes an action, he is responsible for the consequences, and thus obligated to abide those consequences… Likewise, a man is obligated to deal with the child he has if his wife conceives. God’s fatherhood is often demonstrated in punishment. But He is also merciful. Are fathers, therefore, required to imitate God’s grace as well as His chastising? Whence comes the impulse to provide and protect? If not from the Bible, and if not from the character of God, then where?

America has gotten worse since the Women’s Liberation movement. Worse was described as moral deterioration: divorce, abortion, crime. And the women’s liberation movement was specified as that movement that rose in the 60’s and focused on equal opportunity, women leaving the home for the workplace, and sexual liberation. Perhaps it is not the actual liberating of women that caused the moral decline, but the attitude women took. Are we talking about a cause of moral decline, or is the women’s liberation movement yet another symptom of a larger rebellion. It was a rebellion against God. “We hate men” was not the origin of the movement, but rather, World War II empowered women when men were unable to work the factories and women left the home to take up those responsibilities. Or perhaps women’s lib. started with suffrage. Are not all created equal, even male and female? Does that not apply to roles? The real wickedness of the feminist mindset is not, “We hate men,” but “We hate God.” For they are rebelling against God’s created order. Perhaps women, though, were not the instigators. Maybe men abusing their authority, really oppressing them (for example, physical violence) caused women to assert themselves. What does this subject matter today? Abortion is going on today, and is horribly unjust to fathers. They have no legal right to stay the murder of their own child. A result of the women’s liberation movement is that men were not allowed to be men, and so have abdicated their roles. But shouldn’t men have stood up against the women’s liberation movement and defended the God-given order? Those who did were slandered. Really, emasculation is a result of the Fall and the Curse, when God told Eve that her desire would be for her husband, it is the terminology of desiring to be “over” her husband, just like sin “got the better of” Cain. Women today do appreciate their liberties, without wicked motives, and make good use of them (women doing missions without their families). The Christian worldview has been proclaimed as the kindest to women. Are we kind to women to fight for equality in the area of sexual promiscuity? Should we not have fought for equality the other way, of neither men’s nor women’s promiscuity being acceptable? Even though we may disagree with the movement, we can use the women’s liberties today for good: a woman who doesn’t believe women should have the vote can choose to submit her vote to her husband’s views. The movement is continuing even today, but is evolving, and so is not necessarily from the same motives as the feminists had in the 60’s.

Sharing is unnecessary and not biblically supported. Sharing is defined as co-ownership, especially as opposed to lending. The distinction between (and comparative value of) giving and sharing was a theme throughout the debate. Are we saying that taking turns is unnecessary? When a child’s friend comes over to play, what is the host child to do? Should he keep his toys to himself? Or – perhaps he should truly give the toy, not expecting it back. Sharing is looking out for other’s interests, putting others ahead of yourself. [Ownership] rights are unbiblical. We put so much emphasis on our rights, but God calls us to give up our rights. Christians are told to love our neighbors as ourselves. Is there a difference morally between offering to share with someone else, and requesting that someone else share with you? Sharing may be unnecessary when giving is an option. But to whom are we to give? How much? Sharing makes life better and more efficient. Instead of buying a toy for each child in a family, they can share one toy. Sometimes there is no money to buy for each individual what they need, but they can have what they need if they all share one. How is hospitality done if not by sharing? God owns everything anyway; none of this property is really ours. God made us stewards, and we are to exercise wisdom and discernment in how best to use what He has entrusted to us.

God withholds because we do not ask. If we are obedient to God, then we abide in God’s love, and God does what we ask. When we walk with God, He gives us the desires of our hearts. The Bible encourages us to entreat God – even to the point of nagging Him. How does God’s sovereignty fit into the equation? Is God really dependent on our actions? God gives some good gifts without prayer (common grace: rain falls on just and unjust; and special grace to Christians, but without us asking). When the Spirit intercedes for our weakness, what if our weakness is that we don’t ask for the right things? Can He bridge that gap? Generally that verse is not interpreted as praying for us when we are not praying, but interceding for us as we pray. God changes His mind when people act or plead with Him. Either God lies or He changes His mind, for he told Moses that He would destroy Israel, and then God didn’t. If our children acted that way, we would punish them… It seems best to act as though what we do and pray matters, regardless of what we believe about the sovereignty of God. Daniel knew God’s prophecy that He would do something at a certain time, but Daniel still prayed for it to happen. Is God’s plan allowed to be malleable? If not for that, could we have this redemption story: God creates the world perfect, but man sins, so God gets to demonstrate His lovingkindness by sending His only Son to die for us. Or did God plan it that way all along? Isn’t consistency an attribute of God? Maybe God must only be consistent within His character (for example, mercy).

Ownership for the sake of hospitality is the best kind of stuff and the best kind of ownership. Best is defined as optimal, in the short term and/or in the long term. People are not equivalent to “stuff.” The other reason to have a lot of stuff is to be like a dragon, hoarding riches and laying on them because they bring pleasure to you individually. Are families included in hospitality? If you own something for the purpose of benefiting others who are in your family, is that still the best kind? There is this trend toward larger and larger master bedrooms, which serves no hospitable purpose, but often detracts from available space for hospitality towards others. Hospitality, though, is an attitude, and can be demonstrated without stuff. Should we buy a lot of stuff to be hugely hospitable? There is a difference between purchasing stuff for the sake of hospitality and making hospitable use of stuff bought for other reasons. This resolution did not address the inherent value of the property in question (ought we to be hospitable with our Play Station?), but rather, with the motive in possessing it. Hospitality enables relationships. Maybe a better kind of ownership would be for God’s call: some people need their own space to refresh in order to do what God has called them to do. If it is impossible to share without making yourself useless, hospitality might not be the most important thing. We should be willing to give up property when God wants us to do something else.

Intimate friendships with the same sex is just as important for men as for women. Intimacy was defined as vulnerability especially in the senses of accountability and sharing emotions. Men see the world differently: things versus relationships. Guys do have as intimate of relationships, but do not express them the same way as girls. Spending the day hunting and sharing a one-sentence commentary on their job (men) can be as intimate as a three hour conversation (women). But the argument of the resolution is that men need to express more – a lot of times, and not in a way that looks like women. Take, for example, David and Jonathan, who had a much closer relationship than what is common to men in our culture. Men are afraid to reveal themselves, especially for accountability. There is also a difficulty in expressing masculine intimacy for fear of seeming “queer*.” Are women really good examples of intimate friendships, or rather than holding each other accountable, aren’t we gossiping and discussing things that shouldn’t be said? Many men experience closer friendships with other men before marriage, and miss those relationships afterwards, but have been unable or have neglected to keep them up. Men have been influenced by the doctrine of individualism, so that they overvalue doing things on their own and not asking for help. The hard world necessitates a shell especially for men, who are in the world more than women. Men don’t have time for relationships. World War II hurt the willingness of men to be open, because they did not want to talk about the horrors they had witnessed or even committed. Were male relationships more prominent in the past or in other cultures? *queer in the sense of homosexual

Each 15-minute segment seemed to go too fast and be over too soon. The incredible value of Pigfests it that they do not allow you to really complete a topic, or all the aspects brought up in the debate. So we keep thinking and talking (and writing!) for weeks to come. I think it is interesting how there are often two themes weaving their way through the debate. At some points there were up to four people with their hands up waiting to speak, so the different threads were carried on well. For myself, I had prepared a resolution, but the things I wanted to bring up with it were touched on in so many of the other debates that I decided not to present mine for debate.

All in all I am quite pleased with how the night went. God answered all of my prayers for the party. As hostess and moderator and human being I felt more focused than I have at some Pigfests, and for that I also thank God.

I’ve been a fan of Monopoly all my life. Getting brothers and sisters, let alone parents, to play this long game has been hard. Whenever I had the chance, I would play. One year for Christmas I got Deluxe Monopoly, the board, box, and various parts of the game wrapped separately so I would have plenty of presents under the tree. I own a book about Monopoly that gives secrets to the game, among which is the hint to buy orange and red properties, statistically the most landed on spaces.

Before I had real money to speak of, I decided to budget when I played Monopoly. I kept a ledger and gave myself a $200 allowance each time around the board. The allowance rolled over, but this budget was not the best strategy for Monopoly. Property is, as you might expect, key in Monopoly. (Allowances reduce spending power when the most properties are available.) In Monopoly, finishing the game is important. Long term strategy requires that you invest cash now in the future, planning to finish the game as the only player not bankrupt. Stopping earlier cheats the strategists.

Learning financial principles and investment strategies can be useful, and Monopoly is a versatile tool. We know there are versions of Monopoly for all sorts of things, changing the wording and the pictures on a board to match a theme: Golf, Disney, Dinosaurs. Some of these, like Lord of the Rings Monopoly, even offer optional new rules. Inspired by these game-twisting ideas, my friends and I have come up with some of our own new rules. Far different than “house rules” (using Free Parking as a lottery), these are made to challenge the way you strategize, and how you think about capital, commerce, and taxes.

Here are a few Alternate Monopoly Rules. — All games must be finished. Early terminations necessarily end in a draw, with no winners. Versions are meant to be played one at a time, and not combined. However, feel free to modify these rules for your own use. Unless stated, all rules are as printed in the Monopoly Rule Book. As a general rule for inventing alternate rules, keep things simple.

InflationEvery time you pass Free Parking, your cash will be assessed and 25% will be returned to the Bank. Properties will not be assessed. Your salary upon passing GO remains the same.

Ultimate Portal (Aughenbaughs)Use 2 Monopoly Boards, preferably with slightly different cards (vintage, specialized version). Landing directly on Go on either board shoots you to the opposite board. Also switch the chance and community chest cards from the two versions. When a Chance or Community Chest card tells you to go somewhere, go there on the opposite board. Everyone starts on one board.

Swiss Bank Account
Play like Ultimate Portal with these additions.
Any cash COLLECTED while your piece is on the SECOND board goes into a Swiss Bank Account. The player may take cash out of that account at any time, but cannot arbitrarily add money. Income Taxes and Bankruptcies cannot touch any cash in the Swiss Bank Account. It stays there through the whole game, even if you are bankrupted in the main game. At the end of the game (when only one player in the main game has any money), the initial winner adds his main game money to his Swiss bank account. If his total is greater than the balances of his opponents in their Swiss bank accounts, he wins.

Criminal JusticeWhen you roll three doubles, get a “Go directly to Jail” card, or land on the “go to jail” space on the board, if you do not have a “Get out of Jail free” card with which to bribe the judge, your game is over. You are capitally executed and your assets are returned to the bank in full.

Wartime/DraftAll taxes are doubled.
If you land directly on any of the four corner squares, you have been drafted. Roll the dice to determine your fate:
1-Tour of Duty. Sit out 3 turns. Come back (to GO) exempt from future service and any taxes.
2-War Hero. Same as 1 with $1,000 bonus.
3-Casualty. Game over. Return assets to the Bank.
4-Draft Dodger. Sit out 3 turns. Resume play from GO. If on any turn afterwards you land on a street property, you may buy any unowned properties in that color group. If you subsequently land on Go to Jail or get a Go to Jail Card, your game is over.
5-Amputee. Sit out 1 turn. Resume play from GO. All future turns, roll both dice and divide by 2, rounding up.
6-Did not Qualify. Proceed with game as normal.

Socialist
At the start of the game all properties are shuffled and dealt to the players. All rents are the prices posted on Indiana. Chance and Community Chest cards that involve spending or receiving money apply to everyone.

Triggered Socialism
If at any time the least propertied player has 3 or more properties LESS than the next richest player, EVERY player must return his lowest-priced property to the bank.

Economic StimulusPay taxes and fees to Free Parking. If anyone lands on Free Parking, the pot is divided evenly among all players, with remainders going to the player who landed on the space.

JubileeEvery time a 7 is rolled, all mortgages are automatically forgiven. Every 7th time around the board, all rent is free.

Savings Discrimination
Every player must spend money on each trip around the board. If he completes a circuit without spending money, he must pay a fine of $50 to the bank.

Debt Incentive
If you own a mortgaged property, you do not have to pay any taxes.

ForeclosureIf a player lands on a mortgaged property, he may pay 110% of the mortgage value to the bank and acquire that property.

LibertarianTaxes and jail are cancelled.

Mobster
Make up your own rent. If you own a property, you have 2 options. You can charge a tenant the printed rent. Or you can make up your own rent, at which point you have a shoot-off with the tenant. You each roll one dice. The higher number wins. Winner (landlord or tenant) collects the made-up rent from the loser. In case of a tie, both players pay printed rent to the bank.

2012
Put a sticker on a community chest card, and one on a chance card. Shuffle both decks (separately). Play Monopoly as usual. When the special Chance card is drawn, 2012 has arrived; the End of the World has come. Clean up the game. There are no winners. If you draw the special Community Chest card, you can play it as written. Or you can keep it as a Cycle Card. If the holder of that card so chooses at the End of the World, he can play his card. Instead of the world ending, it merely begins a new cycle or phase. The game is still over, but assets are summed and a winner is declared.

Freaky FridayWhenever doubles are rolled, players keep their same pieces but all assets shift clockwise (to the left). No new rents are paid as a result of the exchange until the next turn.

Insurance
Optional: Each player has the option at the beginning of the game of receiving a reduced Go paycheck of $150 as insurance against Utilities and Railroads. The extra $50 goes into the middle of the board and pays Utilities and Railroads charges unless there is no money in the pot, at which point the rents/fees are still charged at $0.

Mayor
When someone rolls a 12, he becomes Mayor. He holds the special mayor piece. Property improvements (houses and hotels) are half price to him while he holds that piece. Mayors are exempt for the duration of their term from property assessment cards. The next person to roll a 12 is elected the new Mayor. No special privileges are retroactive.

Insurance is a guard against risk. Term life insurance is provision for your family in case you die young – an unlikely occurrence. Car insurance is coverage in case you get in an accident – which most people won’t. What we call health insurance is not insurance. It is a “benefit,” like a retirement plan. Our system originated when companies were competing for labor without breaking the salary cap laws.

We could have health insurance, an investment to pay large, unexpected expenses if they come up. There are a few plans that cover only catastrophic needs. These are not the kind provided by employers in our market today. Of course, if employers want to pay for preventive healthcare and common doctor’s visits, that is their competitive option. It shouldn’t be mandatory, any more than a salary cap should be mandatory.

Employers could also provide grocery coverage: the planned, necessary expense; for each employee and his family. The price of food would go up, and options would go down, and companies would do better to just pay well for their labor, letting the consumers determine the demand and value of food. Consumers are less extravagant, more cost-conscious, and diligent to hold providers accountable for their products and services.

What makes us think that paying rows of middle men for our health care payment system will result in saving money or improving care? Are these middle men doing something I couldn’t do myself? No – they’re distancing me from information about my options in health care and the shocking costs of some procedures.

My solution is this:

1. Do not require an employer to do anything for his employee that does not concern his job: cover injuries caused by the job and keep work environments safe.

2. Also eliminate what is essentially a tax break on the benefits provided by employers. If wages are going to be taxed, so should the health care benefits and retirement plans.

3. Do not require insurance companies to have a minimum amount of coverage, nor any specifics. Instead, enforce contract law: openness of the agreement being made and stiff penalties for either party dropping their end of the bargain.

4. Do not require individuals to have health insurance of any kind. If the problem is in collecting payment for emergency services rendered to the poor, this needs to be addressed in a wider question of bankruptcy laws and debt repayment. Leaving individuals to the option of health insurance reduces the weight on the health care industry by discouraging unnecessary doctor’s visits and encouraging preventative lifestyles.

5. Allow increased competition by revoking the state line restrictions on insurance policy sales.

6. Reduce the cost to healthcare professionals by reforming the system that allows doctors to be sued without probable cause. Our economy and government is almost completely biased against businesses in favor of consumers. The customer is not always right; sometimes the “customer” is committing fraud.

This may be a little belated for anyone trying to decide how to vote around here.Then again we have a lot of procrastinators in this country.Whether you’ve already voted or not, or even if you don’t live in Colorado, I hope that this little study of the ballot issues and why I am for or against them will educate you on my views about government.

The text of this amendment prohibits government discrimination FOR or against people seeking public employment, education, or contracts.It lists race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin as the categories protected against discrimination.I do not believe that this is any threat to our liberties as a nation, nor an affront to our morals.The language prohibits affirmative action, which is one of the most frustrating forms of intentional discrimination practiced in our country.I’m glad to support an amendment restricting this injustice.

YES on Amendment 46.

Amendment 47: Prohibition on Mandatory Labor Union Membership and Dues (as a condition of employment; including government and private employers)

For my thoughts on this issue, I am grateful to a friend who works in businesses where membership in a union is the only way contractors are connected with work.The bidding process is handled by unions, or something like that.So if membership in a union were not mandatory, then either there would be no work for them or some employees who are union men would carry the financial load for their coworkers in an essential part of their business.

Secondly, this law places restrictions on the employer, which is not healthy for an economy.I believe that the owner of a business has a right to do as he will with his business, and if employees don’t like the way they’re treated or the conditions of their employment, they can look for a new job.This is the free market system.I almost always side with employers and owners.

NO on Amendment 47.

Amendment 48: Definition of Person

I have covered this topic at length on this blog.The Colorado Constitution guarantees certain rights to all persons in this state.We in the pro-life movement believe that this law, which includes the right to life and due process, should have been applied all along to all persons, no matter how small, including the unborn.The fact that over 40 abortions are performed in Colorado every day is evidence that this law is not being enforced this way.Thousands of innocent babies are being deprived of their fundamental and legal right to life because judges have declared this word “person” to be ambiguous.The campaign argues that medical science and common sense make it clear when life and personhood begins, and it is at fertilization.There is no other possible and logical place at which to draw the line.We believe that defining personhood will uplift the value we as citizens of Colorado place on life, from the smallest among us to the strongest and healthiest adult to the sick or the elderly.

Arguments against this amendment center selfishly around the repercussions of acknowledging the inescapable fact that these tiny lives are persons.Opponents would rather deny the personhood of these babies so that they can continue to murder them for any and every reason.These campaigners, who stand to lose a profitable industry in abortion, threaten that this law will force mothers to sacrifice their lives for terminal preborn children in cases such as eptopic pregnancies.However, the law will not assert the rights of one life over another.If a woman’s life is at risk, or the life of a twin is really threatened by a child, nothing in this law prohibits the defense of the endangered lives.Do not let these tragic instances keep you from defending 40 babies a day or more by defining them in the law as we already know them scientifically to be: individual living persons.

YES on Amendment 48.

Amendment 49:Prohibit the government from deducting things like union dues from the paychecks of public employees.

This law will protect public employees from deductions not endorsed by the government.At present employees must take extra action to prevent the deductions.This would put the burden of collection of union dues or other contributions on the unions, relieving the government from the burden of collecting the money for them.We shouldn’t make the government the middle man for other agencies.

YES on Amendment 49.

Amendment 50: Return decisions about the limits on Gaming (gambling) in Central City, Black Hawk, and Cripple Creek to the respective communities, including casino hours, types of games offered, and limits on bet amounts.

I am morally opposed to gambling, and thus believe that it should be illegal.This is not the case in Colorado, but I do not want it expanded.Additionally, this law directs most of the potential additional revenue to State community colleges.I believe it is none of the government’s business to be involved in education in any way, let alone in funding.And I always vote against increases in taxes until the government can prove themselves good and law-abiding stewards of the money already entrusted to them.

NO on Amendment 50.

Amendment 51: Increases the state sales tax and directs the revenue to services for people with developmental disabilities.

Again, I always vote against tax increases until the government can prove themselves faithful stewards of our money.However, if they were to use part of their existing budget to fund social or charity programs like this, I would consider them failing in their trust.Charity is best done privately, without government middle men.I do not want my government taking the privilege of administering help to my neighbors away for me.When they do this, the people begin to view the government more and more as the savior and provider.They will continually vote themselves largesse, as Alexander de Toqueville warned.I believe we should help these people, but I believe the help should be private, led by individuals, charities, and churches.

NO on Amendment 51.

Amendment 52: Use severance tax (which has nothing to do with our normal use of the word severance) revenue for highways.

This law takes budgeting into the hands of the people.However, it is a narrow-minded and inflexible law not allowing for changing and competing needs of things other than transportation.Not only does the law limit the use of this revenue to highways; it specifies which highways, which is not at all a fair deal for all of Colorado.The legislature is responsible for directing money to important projects like government highways and water storage.Though I have little confidence in our legislature at the moment, I believe the solution is to elect men of integrity to office, who will be competent representatives in our state; not to take responsibility away from them in one of their few legitimate spheres.

NO on Amendment 52.

Amendment 53 has been withdrawn per proponent’s request and no votes for or against will be recorded.

Amendment 54: Campaign Contributions from Certain Government Contractors.This law would do three things: 1) prohibit contractors working for the government, whose contracts are worth more than $100,000 and whose award of the contract was not the result of solicitation of at least three competitive bids, from contributing to political parties or candidates during the contract’s duration and 2 years after.2) Encourage government entities to solicit 3 competitive bids for each contract.3) Set up an online, publicly accessible database of all government contracts awarded to companies for which there was no competitive bid.

I am not opposed to requiring governments to welcome competitive bids for projects.This is the responsible and honest thing to do.The online database is a little over the top, but their heart is in the right place.HOWEVER, I am 100% opposed to prohibiting a company or individual from contributing to a candidate or party of their choice.The way to prevent corruption is to elect honest officials and to pay close attention to the government, not to restrict the rights of free men in this state.An honest contractor can have interests in seeing one candidate elected, and ought to be able to do his part to ensure that victory without being accused of paying for the privilege of government contracts.(For example, a small businessman may want to contribute money to a candidate who says he will lower taxes on small business versus an opponent who will raise them.The businessman if he is smart will realize it is in his economic interest to help the lower tax candidate to be elected, and ought to be free to contribute money to that candidate.)We cannot ask our contractors to surrender their right to political involvement simply so they can have work.Fight corruption other ways!

NO on Amendment 54.

Amendments 55, 56, and 57 have been withdrawn by their respective proponents.No votes for or against will be reported.

Amendment 58: Increase the amount of state severance taxes paid by oil and natural gas companies, and allocate that revenue to college scholarships, wildlife habitats, renewable energy projects, and transportation projects in energy-impacted areas.And exempt all oil and gas severance tax revenue from state and local spending limits.

I am against raising taxes.In some campaigns this season tax cuts for oil companies has been thrown around like a slur, but it is not.Tax credits are the way that the tax system is designed.I don’t like it, but until you change the whole thing you can’t just eliminate one part of it.Oil companies are not bad guys.The reason people don’t like them is because we were paying $4 a gallon for gasoline earlier this year.The government took a large portion of that amount in taxes.If we raise taxes on the companies that supply gasoline, they will either have to cut spending (and reduce supply!) or pass on the price hike to us the consumers.What’s more, the tax credit is an incentive for oil and gas industries to do business in Colorado.We do not want the jobs and revenue they provide to leave our state for more competitive areas.

I do not want revenue to go to colleges, to wildlife habitats (since when is this a legitimate concern for a government?), renewable energy (get the energy companies to invest in these technologies themselves; they will), etc.

NO on Amendment 58.

Amendment 59: Eliminate the rebates that taxpayers receive when the state collects more money than it is allowed, and spend the money on preschool through 12th grade public education.

No to tax increases.Do not eliminate TABOR, the main pillar of which is essentially to balance the state budget by requiring refunds to taxpayers when we are taxed over budget.No to public schools.Schooling is a private responsibility, dangerous and inefficient in the hands of the government.

While I’m at it I’ll throw in the State Referendums, too.

Referendum L: lower the age requirement for serving in the state legislature from 25 to 21.

Why not?The fact that we have so many ages defining maturity in our state is ridiculous.At sixteen you can get a driver’s license, at 18 you can vote.When you are 21 you can drink.And at 25 you can be a member of the legislature.(There are ages for adopting and renting cars, for buying lottery tickets and being out after curfew.It’s all a very confusing mess.)You may say that there are very irresponsible 21 year olds.Yet 21 year olds can vote, and a stack of voting 21 year olds can do a lot more damage than one 21 year old who must be duly elected before holding office.If a 21 year old is counted qualified for the job by the people, he ought to have the job.My brother is 20.If he did a little research on government and wanted to run for office, I would want the privilege of voting for him.Because while there are admittedly immature 21 year olds (and 25 year olds, and 50 year olds!), there are also mature and capable ones.

YES on Referendum L.

Referendum M and Referendum N are about removing obsolete provisions from the laws.I am not opposed to this, but read them; they constitute a mini-history lesson.

Referendum O: Change requirements for citizen-initiated State laws.

Right now citizens (as opposed to government officials/legislators) can initiate state amendments or statutes that must meet certain requirements to make the ballot, and even then must be approved by voters.And amendment is part of the constitution, originally intended to describe the rights of the people and the limits of the government.These laws are permanent unless repealed by the people with another constitutional amendment.Statutes are laws as well, but refer more to the practical application of principles (traffic laws, etc.)Statutes may be made or altered by the legislature without reference to the people in an election.Or they may be citizen-initiated.By nature, statutes are less permanent.Presently the requirements for getting either an amendment or a statute on the ballot are the same, and they are relatively easy compared to other states.

Referendum O seeks to make statutes easier to put on the ballot by reducing the number of petition signatures required.

The referendum would make amendments harder to get on the ballot in two primary ways: 1) increase the required number of signatures.2) require that eight percent of signatures be gathered from each congressional district

I’m up in the air on whether I want it to be easy or hard for citizens to initiate legislation.I’ve heard arguments on either side.HOWEVER, I am completely opposed to this referendum because of the 8% requirement.An amendment could be blocked from the ballot by a minority, by one section of the state.I’m not sure what the lines are for congressional districts, but this referendum would say that if Boulder residents didn’t want an amendment, even if Pueblo, Grand Junction, Greeley, Bennet, Denver, and Estes Park wanted it, the petition would be rejected.This is not republican government.It is rule by a minority.This would prevent legislation that would be in the interest of the state as a whole from being even introduced in ballot form because one district decided it was not in their interest.We cannot do this.

NO on Referendum O.

I’m welcoming you to interact with this “voter guide” for educational purposes.Please do not campaign in the comment section.Comments are moderated, and I’m giving fair warning that I may choose not to post some comments.However, if your comments are gracious and profitable for the conversation, I will post them even in disagreement that we all may be sharpened.

You know, it’s really fulfilling to do your own taxes. Of course I don’t think we should have to do taxes. The government should find easier ways of confiscating our money.

You know, it’s really exciting to be getting an income tax return. Of course if the IRS hadn’t taken our money in the first place, we would have it already.

You know, it’s really inspiring to do your own taxes. Of course I think the government shouldn’t make any rules too complicated for its average citizen to carry out. A lot of people use accountants. I wish the IRS would put them out of business… by closing itself.

I like understanding accounting lingo and legal jargon put into tax forms and instructions. I find myself wondering as I scroll through pages of information irrelevant to me, “Who writes these? What kind of life do they have?”

GK Chesterton said he likes whole jobs: one person creates a finished item from scratch. Taxes are like that for me, in a perverse sort of way.

A lot of bloggers are talking about economics right now, and how easy it is to see that our economy is doomed. Social security is doomed. The housing market is doomed. The stock market is doomed. All these are likely temporary, but easy to see. Take social security. A few people put in money, filter it through bureaucracy and leave in in the hands of politicians for decades. The politicians, however, do not leave it in their hands, but spend it. When the people retire, the government tries to fulfill their promise of returning the money, but it hasn’t increased. It has decreased through demand, inefficiency, inflation, and not being in any account in the first place. This does not seem like a great plan.

And this has to be evident to the smart insiders running the system. So I ask myself, with all these simple, obvious economic truths, why would these insiders continue to promote these follies? How did we get here? What’s in it for the insider powers-that-be? You have to wonder, even if you’re paranoid of becoming a conspiracy theorist.

Don’t even get me started on the incompetent, selfish, slave-master corporations (if I who am not anything near a Marxist or socialist can talk like that, no wonder socialists and Marxists are so destructive!).