The Biblical Answers to Our 2008
General Election Questionnaire
By Dr. David J. Vaughan
Listed below are the Questionnaire
topics and statements under each topic from our 2008 Federal and State level
General Election Questionnaires. Candidates 
were
asked to ponder the statements under each topic and select a single statement
that either directly reflected or came the closest
to reflecting their personal opinion or beliefs on that particular topic.
The statements under each topic were
structured to not only reveal the candidates knowledge of the subject but,
more importantly, their overall world view.
An individual’s world view
reveals how they think and act privately as well as publicly. Knowing or at
least having a sense of an individual’s world view is extremely important - particularly
when they’re running for public office. Values voters, i.e. Christian citizens,
should expect and should be most supportive of those candidates whose answers
reflect a biblical, Christian world view on each of the subjects covered in our
Questionnaire.
As mentioned above, listed below
are the Questionnaire topics and statements under each topic from our 2008
Federal and State level General Election Questionnaires. Following each topic and its respective statements
we have a provided the appropriate response from a biblical, Christian world
view perspective. We encourage you to compare the answers that your candidate
provided through their Questionnaire to the appropriate responses that we’ve
listed below before casting your vote.
[a] As
a world leader, the
[b] The
This preamble states the primary goals or
governing vision of the entire document that followed. As such it is clear that the welfare of the
American people (“we the people”) should be the primary focus of any and all
laws, contracts, treaties or international agreements. Any laws or agreements that conflict with the
rights of American citizens as defined in the Constitution itself is at odds
with the very purpose of the Constitution, and the American government
established to insure these rights.
This vision accords with the biblical
teaching on the nature of civil government.
Ordained by God as an instrument to establish justice and peace,
citizens are exhorted to pray for and submit to their government. However, these very exhortations to prayer
and submission are based on the assumption of what we call national
sovereignty. To put it another way,
obligations of both government and citizen are reciprocal and limited. A citizen of the
This does not mean, however, that as Christians
we do not care about the condition or fate of those who suffer under oppressive
regimes or bankrupt economies. As Christians
and as churches we ought to aid our fellow man as much as possible.
This duty of charity, however, is different from the government’s responsibility
to insure domestic justice, peace and prosperity.
The civil government is neither a welfare agency nor an international
police force. Its power, under God, is derived from its own
citizens and is answerable to them. Therefore,
the
[a] We
should do whatever it takes to safeguard our nation against terrorism even
though it may mean the restriction or suspension of certain Constitutional rights and protections.
[b] The
government's role in fighting terrorism should be confined to its original
Constitutional role, such as controlling immigration and protecting our borders
and not infringing upon citizen’s Constitutional rights.
The Bible clearly recognizes the right to
self-defense (Ex. 22:2). This individual
right is in principle the same right by which the civil government protects its
own borders and interests, and authorizes the government to wage war and punish
criminals. In other words, the
government’s police power is really the individual’s right to security
delegated to the civil government. In
fighting terrorism, therefore, the civil government must not only protect the
physical interests of its citizens, but also insure their legal interests, that
is, their personal rights.
While the Constitution does provide for the
temporary suspension of some rights in a time of war, the so-called “war on
terror” is not a war as understood by the Constitution. It has never been (and indeed cannot be)
formally declared by the President and Congress. Therefore, the traditional constitutional
categories do not apply.
As a result, we Christians reason from broad
biblical principles. Fortunately we have
a long history in the Church of political theory known as the “just war”
theory. One of its provisions deals with
“collateral damage,” and argues that in any military action, as little damage
as possible should be inflicted on the “innocent” – the non-combatants. The original focus, of course, was physical
harm but the principle applies to any type of harm, including harm done to
one’s property or rights. Therefore, in
fighting terrorism, the government must seek to do as little harm as possible
to the non-combatants, and to protect not only the life, but also the property
and rights of is own citizens.
[a] Our
state must take full advantage of gaming since it benefits state and local
governments.
[b] Gaming
has proven beneficial to the state but further expansion of gaming should not
be allowed.
[c]
Gambling has proven to be a social and economic liability for our state
which, in part, is evident by the efforts of the casinos to prohibit a
comprehensive study of gambling’s impact on our citizens. Therefore, gambling
in our state should be abolished.
That gambling has proven detrimental to society is evident from all the
studies that have been conducted: it drains investment away from business,
increases addiction, lowers property values, and strengthens organized
crime. From a biblical perspective,
Christians must avoid any activity that causes illegitimate harm to society. Thus, the second great commandment to “love
your neighbor as yourself” is sufficient reason for Christians to oppose
gambling. Moreover, gambling wastes
one’s time; estranges the heart from God; seduces to love of the world; breeds
laziness; inspires discontent; and is a contempt of God’s providence – all further
reasons for Christians to support the abolition of State gambling.
[a] Private property should, in some situations, be subject to public opinion and
consensus as to its use.
[b] Private property is fundamental to
freedom and prosperity and should not be subject to external controls.
[c] Private property cannot be allowed to
stand in the way of civic progress or the good of a community.
There is a sacred bond between God, the land, and His people. There are
no substantial freedoms for citizens in
The
Eminent Domain Supreme Court Decision is a direct violation of our Constitution
and more importantly, a direct violation of God’s sacred law, “thou shalt not steal.” Theft is theft regardless of the
perpetrator - whether he be a hooded robber with a gun
or a black-robed judge with an unrighteous decree. This tyrannical decision
needs to be reversed and our elected officials must use their legislative
powers to overthrow this despotic ruling issued by the highest court in our
land.
[a] A good portion of our citizens cannot afford
the ever increasing cost of medicines & other health care expenses. Our
state must help those in need of health care coverage as it does in other areas
of social service.
[b] Our state should not be in the health
care business, whether it's paying for medicines or subsidizing other medical
expenses. It is not the state's responsibility to pay for its citizen's medical
care. However, civil government should make sure insurance companies and direct
health care providers do not price gouge citizens.
[c] Our state should provide limited financial
assistance to those who cannot afford the high cost of medicines and medical
services, but should not strive to become our citizen's primary health care
provider.
The modern issue of health care must be
viewed through the biblical teaching on charity. In the Scriptures there are three “circles of
concern:” the family, the Church and the State.
Which has the primary duty of caring for the poor and infirm? That duty falls mainly on the family. Next in line is the Church, which is also to
help those who have no family support (I Tim. 5: 1-16). Other than the example of famine in
Therefore, it can be argued that the responsibility
to provide health care falls first on the family and secondarily on the Church.
The role of the civil government ought to be one of insuring fair and
equitable medical and legal practices, not one of providing health care itself. Of course, this would require two areas of reform.
First taxes must be lowered so families have the economic means to
care for their own. And secondly, the insurance industry must be
reformed, the result of which would be the lowering of medical costs. These two reforms alone would alleviate the
so-called “crisis” in health
care, and eliminate the need for direct government intervention.
[a]
[b] Issues related to morality are very
subjective. Therefore, government should not legislate
morality.
[c] Laws, by their nature, legislate morality.
Since our nation was founded upon the specific moral principles of the Judeo-Christian
belief system, those principles should be our guide to the enactment of any
legislation.
According
to Romans chapter 13, God ordains human government as a means to curb evil and
reward good in this life. Government
officials are here called the “servants” of God. Government originates in the Divine will;
therefore, God desires that it conform to the Divine will or law.
Civil
government is not, as some have taught, an evil institution. It is a good institution designed to punish evil. The State is required by God to keep law and
order by protecting the law-abiding citizen and punishing the law-breaking
criminal. The State is, therefore, an
agency of “wrath” or “vengeance” against those who violate the law. To this end, God has given the State the
“sword,” which is a symbol of its power to inflict physical punishments on
criminals.
However,
it is erroneous to assume, therefore, that because Church and State are
distinct institutions, that the State is a non-religious, or purely secular,
institution. Romans 13
teaches that civil government has its origin in the Divine Will, thus it
does not have a secular (non-religious) foundation. Moreover, the duty of the State is to
implement law, and law has its foundation in religious belief. Law is inescapably moral,
and morality expresses notions of ultimate value or religious presupposition. In a sense, law is the legal codification of a
society’s religious values. For
instance, in our founding legal document, we are told that “men are endowed
with certain inalienable rights,” such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness;” and that these rights are derived from “the laws of Nature and
Nature’s God.” Here we have a religious
principle codified in a legal document.
As a result, we criminalize and punish murder. Yet, we do so because we believe that human
life is sacred. But our belief in the
sanctity of human life is religiously derived; it is an article of faith.
[a] In
essences we are a nation of immigrants. As a wealthy and benevolent country we
should welcome with open arms anyone who comes here and support their needs
without challenges to their circumstances.
[b] Our
nation was built in part on the strength of immigrants and continues to be
strengthened by contemporary immigration. Today’s debate over legal v. illegal
aliens cautions us to provide rights and services to both groups to varying yet
equitable degrees.
[c] Our
nation should restrict immigration more than it is currently doing. Present
immigration threatens our national sovereignty and can be greatly restricted
without denying our past or jeopardizing our future. Illegal aliens should be
deported expeditiously and without question.
Biblically, God established the nations for His glory and our benefit
(Acts
The
other important point in dealing with this thorny issue is God’s warning found
in Dt. 28:43-44. God’s Word states, “The stranger
that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and though shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.” When this nation is foolish enough to
disregard and defy God’s moral laws, one of the consequences is immigration
nightmares. As a nation, our sayings and doings have been against the Lord for
years, therefore the alien, the stranger, the foreigner, and illegal immigrant
are rising up and damaging all our institutions and national infrastructure.
They strain and drain our schools, hospitals, law enforcement and failed
welfare system. Thus it behooves
[a]
The rights of all citizens, regardless of their race, nationality,
religion, sex, age, physical disabilities or sexual preference should be
protected. We should eliminate discrimination wherever it is found.
[b] No one should be discriminated against
because of their race, nationality, religion, sex, age or physical
disabilities. However, special protections based upon someone's sexual
preference should not be legislated.
The Bible does not encourage persecution against persons because of
race, religion, nationality, religion or gender. The modern notion of “sexual preference” (a
code word for homosexual) is foreign to a biblical world-view.
In
the Bible, we are told that God created “male and female” and commanded them to
“be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:27-28). Marriage was instituted to
facilitate procreation and alleviate man’s loneliness, requiring the “man to
leave his mother and father, and cleave unto his wife” (Gen. 2:18-25). Clearly, then, God’s created order for human
sexual expression is heterosexual monogamous marriage.
All
sexual activity outside of the marriage institution is considered sinful. Therefore, the Scriptures prohibit adultery
(Ex.
[a] The freedom to have an abortion is, and
should remain, a woman's choice.
[b] Abortions should not be allowed except
in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
[c] Abortions should not be allowed except
to save the life of the mother.
[d] Under no circumstances should any type
of abortion be allowed.
The Christian view of abortion can only be understood in the broader
context of the Bible’s overwhelmingly pro-life teaching. The indisputable
sanctity of human life is taught throughout the Scriptures. From Genesis onward, for instance, the
creation account states that men and women are created in the very image of God
(Gen.1:26-28). This simple but profound
fact gives human life a priceless value.
Moreover, Genesis also tells us that God commanded man to be fruitful
and multiply, a command that includes a moral judgment that human life is a
positive good that should be reproduced.
In addition, God required that murder be punished by death because man
is made in the image of God (Gen. 9:5-6).
Of course, the ultimate statement on the value of innocent human life is
the death of Christ for mankind. How
precious is a human soul for which Christ was willing to die?
In
light of this biblical testimony, we must answer the question of the “hard
cases” – rape and incest? According to
the Bible, only those should be punished who commit a crime. Thus, the offending party, the rapist or
incestuous perpetrator should suffer, not the unborn child who is the innocent
party.
For
many Christians the most difficult case is when a mother’s life is in danger
from childbirth. However, the same
Christ who laid down his life for us has told us to lay down our lives for
others. This is not mere cant; it is
a literal command. When necessary,
we are to follow Christ’s example and die that others may live. A Christian mother, who risks
her life that her child might live, is exemplifying Christian love of the
highest order.
[a] The
[b] I view the U.S. Constitution as one of
the primary founding documents of our country.
It should never be interpreted without first considering the intent
of our founding fathers when it was written.
I recognize that it can only be changed through a properly enacted
amendment after careful consideration and public debate.
The Bible does not directly address the question of Constitutional interpretation.
However, it does address the issue of truth telling.
In the Ninth Commandment, we are told not to bear false witness; this
requires not only that we tell the truth, but also that we accurately represent
the words and actions of others. Misrepresentation
of someone else’s words is a distortion or perversion of meaning. It is a form of lying. This is forbidden by Scripture, and is the biblical
basis for a strict interpretation of the Constitution – indeed, of any written
document. To read the Constitution
contrary to the meaning of the drafters is to falsify their meaning, which
the Bible forbids. Those who argue
that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” generally attempt
to change the plain meaning of the text to fit a modern politically-correct
agenda.
[a] Support and oversight of education by
federal, state and local government is absolutely necessary to ensure that all
children receive a high quality education for the good of society as a whole.
[b] Education should be supported and
monitored at state and local levels with minimal federal involvement.
[c] Education of children should be left
in the hands of parents without federal or state intervention or control.
The Bible recognizes at least three “orders” or “institutions” ordained
by God to administer His authority: the State, the Church and the Family. These three are institutionally separate, with
different duties and rights. The State
is to administer civil justice as defined by God: its symbol is the sword.
The Church is to administer grace through the Gospel, the sacraments
and charity: its symbol is the keys. The Family is to administer nurture, instruction
and welfare: its symbol is the rod. Thus,
there is no biblical mandate for State involvement in education, while there
is a clear and forceful mandate to the Family (the parents) to train and educate
their children (See Dt. 4:9; 6:3-9, 20-25; Pr. 1:
8-9; 22:6; Eph. 6:1-4). A biblical
approach to education, therefore, will limit the involvement of civil government
while simultaneously encouraging parents to assume full responsibility for
their children’s education.
[b] Gun
control is a must in today’s world with crime on the rise and our children at
risk. The 2nd Amendment should apply only to the National Guard, military and
law enforcement, not the general public.
[c] The 2nd Amendment broadly protects the
rights of individual Americans to keep and bear arms. Gun control infringes
upon this Constitutional right and
violates the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Commenting
on this verse, Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser says, “the
thief was exposed to the loss of his life as the householder defended himself,
his family, and his home by delivering a lethal blow. This was especially true at night when the
thief’s intentions (whether to steal, kill or both) could not be easily and
quickly determined.” Because the Bible
recognizes the right to private property, as well as the sanctity of marriage,
a man has the right to defend both his property and family from violent
criminal action.
The
right to self-defense would be useless of course, if law-abiding citizens did
not have the appropriate means to halt aggressive criminals. Thus, self-defense assumes and requires the
right to bear arms. A disarmed citizen
is a defenseless citizen, regardless of his supposed “rights.” This was surely the view of our nation’s
Founders who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment.