Two interesting things happened this weekend... I began separate discussions with two self-professed "Evangelicals" both of whom, I believe will likely support Barack Obama in the fall.

Over the next day or so - I'd like to replay for your benefit and discussion the two sides of the debate. I'd also greatly appreciate your further thoughts - as this is a genuine attempt to hash out the evangelical's role in the election in November.

Let me state up front - that I am not a supporter of either primary candidate. I have written intense criticism of both men. And if you do not believe me - go check my column archives for the months of November 2006 - January of 2007.

Nonetheless Christians are REQUIRED to participate in the election of 2008 - if we choose not to we are exercising disobedience to a known command - to "render to Caesar that which belongs to him." (In this nation - WE - are Caesar therefore our duty is to rule justly and at minimum that means voting righteously!

The column that began the first discussion with an evangelical named Steve was my syndicated piece from Sunday that discussed Barack's "solution" to the AIDS crisis. Not behavior, not different choices, not discernment - CONDOMS! In response this is how Steven began the conversation:

You seem to be quite dismissive of Evangelicals who support Obama in this election.  As one of them, I think there are more important issues than "condoms" and I'm not sure you are right about this micro-issue.
Sincerely,
Steve Savage

To which my responses began:
Steve's reply:

First of all, the President has little if anything to do with those moral and religious issues.  More importantly, the mission of the Church is far better accomplished through Kingdom means than through the "arm of man."
 
As for potential persecution - I don't really see that happening and if it did it would only be what Jesus told us to expect.
 
Presidents DO have have a role in deciding whether or not to start wars, whether or not to abandon civil liberties and violate treaties, whether or not to ignore important warnings from the scientific community, and how to resolve international issues in places like Pakistan, Afganhistan, Iraq, Iran etc.  They do have an influence on whether we move to a rational energy policy.  They do have a role in whether or not we can resolve important issues like Social Security, Health Care and Immigration.  A responsible Evangelical voter must also consider all of these issues.

Christians who thought they were voting based on Biblical values in the last two elections were instrumental in giving us a president who made some very poor choices on the issues he could effect.
 
I don't support the killing of innocent children - in the US or in Iraq or anywhere.  However; electing a President who might-make-a-nomination-that-might-someday-influence-a-court-decision-that-might-or-might-not-change-the-opinions-and-actions-of-still-unconvinced-pro-abortion-Americans hardly seems to be the best way to do something about killing innocent children.
 
Sincerely,
Steve Savage

My response, from my phone, driving about 65mph headed down 95 to DC:

Yes you do support the killing of Children as Obama supported the killing of born children...

End of first exchanges...

Obviously there is much more that could be said to the plethora of Steve's anti-biblical views. Which are astounding really... given that he is touting himself as  an evangelical it is fair to measure him by what he claims to be. I know Obama does not wish to be, his supporters likely don't either... But for now... to claims of the back and forth...

What say you?