What has actually "pushe[d] the political Overton Window Leftward" is . . . left-leaning policies. Voting for - and getting - conservative and/or libertarian-leaning policies will move the Overton Window . . . rightward.
And when the Overton Window has been pushed back the other way . . . it creates a societal context in which it's easier to promote the pro-life stance, because in a right-leaning society //more people are willing to give you a hearing// on that subject.
In other words: there's a conceptual context to persuading someone to change their stance on any given issue (not just abortion). Some contextual factors will make changing their existing stance harder for them. This includes being in a left-leaning society with entrenched, institutional humanism.
THEREFORE . . . it's Biblically valid to vote for candidates who will--
(a) Shift the Overton Window rightward;
(b) Shrink the federal government and thus expand personal freedom; and
(c) Stop funding institutional humanism.
As an example of both (b) and (c), if we were to privatize healthcare, fewer abortions would occur because not as many women (or men trying to avoid fatherhood!) would pay for them out of their own pockets.
This approach to voting is one way (out of many!) to be "salt" - i.e., a preservative - in our culture. If we DON'T vote for candidates whose policies are inclined toward (a)-(c), what we'll end up with is a very pagan culture in which it's then IMPOSSIBLE to reverse course on abortion. By contrast, electing candidates who are very freedom-oriented ALSO has the effect of making room for candidates who are /pro-life/ - which in turn gives the pro-life cause a louder, more persuasive voice in the halls of legislation.
A perfect example is Maxime Bernier: a while back he said that although he was pro-choice himself, /because of his libertarian leanings/ if he were elected to office he would allow any of his MPs to bring forward bills restricting abortion - precisely so that the matter could be FREELY DEBATED in parliament.
Therefore your contention isn't necessarily as "Christian" as you suppose. Your objective itself is good, but you're sabotaging the means of seeing it realized.
What you're saying only works if politics affects culture, but that's not at all what happens. It's culture that affects politics. Moving the political Overton window to the right will not be something accomplished through politics, but through the cultural change that comes from Christians doing Gospel work.
And my objective is nothing more than asking what pleases the Lord. You offered no scriptural support or defense for your position, which tells me it's more pragmatic than principled, and I don't know if it does please Lord.
You would have to twist the scriptures inside out to come up with a biblically defensible argument for saying that Christians should support someone who will not defend the rights of all Canadian citizens to not have their lives unjustly taken. You would have to do hermeneutical gymnastics to say that God is pleased with voting for people who will actively oppose seeking justice for all Canadians, declaring they will not do their God ordained job as a civil magistrate.
Yes, culture affects politics - but there's also a feedback loop.
If voters elect into office candidates who are pro-freedom and anti-big government, that reflects a change in the broader culture: more voters, in that scenario, are themselves pro-freedom and anti-big government.
But then comes the feedback loop: freedom-oriented leaders in office produce legislation (or /eliminate the opposite/ legislation) that cuts back on government overreach and cuts off funding to the leftist-humanist agenda in societal institutions.
In turn, this gives rise to more voters who are oriented in the same direction, especially in the realm of education. We have more lefty voters today than in years gone by precisely /because/ many, if not most, of those lefties were indoctrinated in government-run schools. Had the government stayed out of education in the first place, that indoctrination wouldn't have occurred; the traditional nuclear family would have been stronger now; and fewer abortions would happen (and perhaps be illegal, as they once were when the nuclear family was stronger!).
But it's precisely because of that indoctrination - and, yes, broader shifts in the culture at large - that would-be Marxist dictators like Pierre Trudeau and his (alleged) son have come to power.
There is no denying that this feedback loop exists; there's no denying that a lesser number of Marxist activists in government, if given time and opportunity, will produce a /greater/ number of likeminded citizens /through/ the vehicle of elected office. It's undeniable that this has happened in Western society: leftist politicians who possess the skill of persuasiveness, for whatever reasons, will indeed persuade voters to think more leftward.
Conversely, freedom-oriented candidates who make it into office will (a) obviously have persuaded voters to support them, or they wouldn't have been elected, but also (b) will, if they do a good job, persuade /more/ voters to think along the same lines ideologically as time goes on.
And there's no "twisting of Scripture" required here. It's quite Biblical to vote for the //available// candidate whose set of policies is, over all, //closer to// the Biblical worldview than the policies of his or her opponent(s).
It's really that simple. By contrast, what you're promoting is in fact /impossible/ without the collapse of society (either by its own leftist machinations, or by God pouring out His wrath on a society that refuses to protect the unborn).
We understand each other's position, so I don't think it makes sense to prolong the conversation. I'll just note that, once again, in all of your answer you did not use the scriptures to defend your position, which I have done in all of the articles I've written advocating for a particular Christian political position. If the scriptures are not both the foundation upon which you live and the lenses through which you perceive, we can never have a meaningful discussion.
Yes, I /did/ use the Scriptures - just not explicitly. But the Scriptures informed my thinking throughout.
(a) I advocated voting for candidates whose policies are /more/ commensurate with the Biblical worldview than the policies of their opponent(s).
Obviously you'll agree that it's Biblical to promote the Biblical worldview!
(b) It logically follows from (a) that a Bible-oriented voter will, in fact, scrutinize a candidate's platform to discern whether it does, in fact, overlap the Biblical worldview. This automatically means bringing Scripture to bear on that policy platform.
Ergo, the understanding and application of Scripture are the most important intrinsic factor in this process.
(c) I referred to Christians being "salt," or a preservative, in society: you should have instantly recognized that as borrowed from Jesus (Matthew 5:13). I then made a /logical inference/ from that premise: voting for a candidate whose policies will nudge the country in the right direction is /one way/ of being a "preservative" in our culture.
By contrast, if we cast votes for candidates who have /zero/ chance of getting elected, then our votes are /not/ tools of preservation; they are instead akin to "salt that has lost its flavor," as Jesus expressed it. Such votes have no power to exercise Christian influence on society.
Moreover, if we could, by our votes, have an impact on who gets into office - but we refuse to vote for the /superior/ policy platform - then we are effectively /aiding and abetting/ the MORE pagan candidate's anti-God agenda.
Your entire thesis is really just a form of "We can't vote for the 'lesser evil,' because that's still voting for evil."
Wrong: because a vote for ANY candidate, even if s/he were the most Christlike candidate the world's ever seen, would /still/ be a "vote for the lesser evil" - because ALL human beings are evil! Voting is //always// about selecting the /least/ evil candidate with the /most/ Biblical policy platform, even if we staunchly (and correctly) disagree with part of that platform.
The approach you're advocating is, sadly, not only a recipe for total ineffectiveness but, more, an /aid/ to Satan's anti-God agenda in the realm of politics.
What has actually "pushe[d] the political Overton Window Leftward" is . . . left-leaning policies. Voting for - and getting - conservative and/or libertarian-leaning policies will move the Overton Window . . . rightward.
And when the Overton Window has been pushed back the other way . . . it creates a societal context in which it's easier to promote the pro-life stance, because in a right-leaning society //more people are willing to give you a hearing// on that subject.
In other words: there's a conceptual context to persuading someone to change their stance on any given issue (not just abortion). Some contextual factors will make changing their existing stance harder for them. This includes being in a left-leaning society with entrenched, institutional humanism.
THEREFORE . . . it's Biblically valid to vote for candidates who will--
(a) Shift the Overton Window rightward;
(b) Shrink the federal government and thus expand personal freedom; and
(c) Stop funding institutional humanism.
As an example of both (b) and (c), if we were to privatize healthcare, fewer abortions would occur because not as many women (or men trying to avoid fatherhood!) would pay for them out of their own pockets.
This approach to voting is one way (out of many!) to be "salt" - i.e., a preservative - in our culture. If we DON'T vote for candidates whose policies are inclined toward (a)-(c), what we'll end up with is a very pagan culture in which it's then IMPOSSIBLE to reverse course on abortion. By contrast, electing candidates who are very freedom-oriented ALSO has the effect of making room for candidates who are /pro-life/ - which in turn gives the pro-life cause a louder, more persuasive voice in the halls of legislation.
A perfect example is Maxime Bernier: a while back he said that although he was pro-choice himself, /because of his libertarian leanings/ if he were elected to office he would allow any of his MPs to bring forward bills restricting abortion - precisely so that the matter could be FREELY DEBATED in parliament.
Therefore your contention isn't necessarily as "Christian" as you suppose. Your objective itself is good, but you're sabotaging the means of seeing it realized.
What you're saying only works if politics affects culture, but that's not at all what happens. It's culture that affects politics. Moving the political Overton window to the right will not be something accomplished through politics, but through the cultural change that comes from Christians doing Gospel work.
And my objective is nothing more than asking what pleases the Lord. You offered no scriptural support or defense for your position, which tells me it's more pragmatic than principled, and I don't know if it does please Lord.
You would have to twist the scriptures inside out to come up with a biblically defensible argument for saying that Christians should support someone who will not defend the rights of all Canadian citizens to not have their lives unjustly taken. You would have to do hermeneutical gymnastics to say that God is pleased with voting for people who will actively oppose seeking justice for all Canadians, declaring they will not do their God ordained job as a civil magistrate.
Yes, culture affects politics - but there's also a feedback loop.
If voters elect into office candidates who are pro-freedom and anti-big government, that reflects a change in the broader culture: more voters, in that scenario, are themselves pro-freedom and anti-big government.
But then comes the feedback loop: freedom-oriented leaders in office produce legislation (or /eliminate the opposite/ legislation) that cuts back on government overreach and cuts off funding to the leftist-humanist agenda in societal institutions.
In turn, this gives rise to more voters who are oriented in the same direction, especially in the realm of education. We have more lefty voters today than in years gone by precisely /because/ many, if not most, of those lefties were indoctrinated in government-run schools. Had the government stayed out of education in the first place, that indoctrination wouldn't have occurred; the traditional nuclear family would have been stronger now; and fewer abortions would happen (and perhaps be illegal, as they once were when the nuclear family was stronger!).
But it's precisely because of that indoctrination - and, yes, broader shifts in the culture at large - that would-be Marxist dictators like Pierre Trudeau and his (alleged) son have come to power.
There is no denying that this feedback loop exists; there's no denying that a lesser number of Marxist activists in government, if given time and opportunity, will produce a /greater/ number of likeminded citizens /through/ the vehicle of elected office. It's undeniable that this has happened in Western society: leftist politicians who possess the skill of persuasiveness, for whatever reasons, will indeed persuade voters to think more leftward.
Conversely, freedom-oriented candidates who make it into office will (a) obviously have persuaded voters to support them, or they wouldn't have been elected, but also (b) will, if they do a good job, persuade /more/ voters to think along the same lines ideologically as time goes on.
And there's no "twisting of Scripture" required here. It's quite Biblical to vote for the //available// candidate whose set of policies is, over all, //closer to// the Biblical worldview than the policies of his or her opponent(s).
It's really that simple. By contrast, what you're promoting is in fact /impossible/ without the collapse of society (either by its own leftist machinations, or by God pouring out His wrath on a society that refuses to protect the unborn).
We understand each other's position, so I don't think it makes sense to prolong the conversation. I'll just note that, once again, in all of your answer you did not use the scriptures to defend your position, which I have done in all of the articles I've written advocating for a particular Christian political position. If the scriptures are not both the foundation upon which you live and the lenses through which you perceive, we can never have a meaningful discussion.
Yes, I /did/ use the Scriptures - just not explicitly. But the Scriptures informed my thinking throughout.
(a) I advocated voting for candidates whose policies are /more/ commensurate with the Biblical worldview than the policies of their opponent(s).
Obviously you'll agree that it's Biblical to promote the Biblical worldview!
(b) It logically follows from (a) that a Bible-oriented voter will, in fact, scrutinize a candidate's platform to discern whether it does, in fact, overlap the Biblical worldview. This automatically means bringing Scripture to bear on that policy platform.
Ergo, the understanding and application of Scripture are the most important intrinsic factor in this process.
(c) I referred to Christians being "salt," or a preservative, in society: you should have instantly recognized that as borrowed from Jesus (Matthew 5:13). I then made a /logical inference/ from that premise: voting for a candidate whose policies will nudge the country in the right direction is /one way/ of being a "preservative" in our culture.
By contrast, if we cast votes for candidates who have /zero/ chance of getting elected, then our votes are /not/ tools of preservation; they are instead akin to "salt that has lost its flavor," as Jesus expressed it. Such votes have no power to exercise Christian influence on society.
Moreover, if we could, by our votes, have an impact on who gets into office - but we refuse to vote for the /superior/ policy platform - then we are effectively /aiding and abetting/ the MORE pagan candidate's anti-God agenda.
Your entire thesis is really just a form of "We can't vote for the 'lesser evil,' because that's still voting for evil."
Wrong: because a vote for ANY candidate, even if s/he were the most Christlike candidate the world's ever seen, would /still/ be a "vote for the lesser evil" - because ALL human beings are evil! Voting is //always// about selecting the /least/ evil candidate with the /most/ Biblical policy platform, even if we staunchly (and correctly) disagree with part of that platform.
The approach you're advocating is, sadly, not only a recipe for total ineffectiveness but, more, an /aid/ to Satan's anti-God agenda in the realm of politics.