"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Galatians 3:23-24

The answer to this question comes down to circumstances. The average church-goer in America won't bother reading this at all, but I know very few Christians that take a Biblical stand on voting.

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
-Proverbs 18:13

Before we begin, I need to quote a few lines of propaganda so we can get a context, and if you've grown up in the public school systems of the United States, and around Amrican TV, you're likely to be very familiar with phrases like the one from this newspaper article:
"Everyone who has served in the Armed Forces has been willing to lay down his/her life so that each U.S. citizen would have the opportunity to be a well-informed, responsible, privileged voting member of this country."
-Letter to the Editor, "Soldiers died so that you could vote," Arizona Daily Sun, Nov 4, 2012, retrieved June 23, 2016, [azdailysun.com/news/opinion/mailbag/soldiers-died-so-that-you-could-vote/article_f7cc3e8a-98ef-50e6-a079-758d54e735c9.html]

Forbes writes:
"I had to immediately remind myself of how incredibly lucky I am just to have the right to vote, and how many people have fought and died for me to be able to enjoy that freedom... Anyone who fails to cast their vote in an election is forgetting that this is their opportunity to protect our FREEDOM."
-Amy R. Anderson, "Cherish the Right to Vote," Forbes, Nov 5, 2012, retrieved June 23, 2016, [forbes.com/sites/amyanderson/2012/11/05/cherish-the-right-to-vote/#21ae6ca92bbe]

The Forbes article goes on to quote George Jean Nathan, who said, "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote," which is one of a the most ludicrously illogical and foolish statements I've ever heard, but most people will accept it without a second thought. First of all, no one gets elected by NOT voting for someone; people only get elected by the votes tallied, not those untallied, and second, wicked officials are elected all the time by so called "good citizens," and that's one of the major points we are going to be covering in this article, but before we get there, we need to dispel some media brainwashing.

The University of North Carolina (UNC) Charlotte lists out ten reasons why they believe their American students should vote, and the first one on the list says:
"America is a democracy. True, it may be a representative democracy, but your elected representatives still need to know how their constituents think in order to accurately represent them. They are counting on your vote as part of that process."
-UNC Charlotte, "10 Reasons Why You Should Vote as a College Student," retrieved June 23, 2016, [democracyexperience.uncc.edu/10-reasons-to-vote]

I've only quoted three sources so far and I can assure you that we've already heard enough propaganda to last three lifetimes, but sadly, most of these sources are not deceiving on purpose, but rather are deceiving others because they themselves are deceived. These people, because of their lack of understanding, will scoff and rail at me for the things I will be writing in this article, but I ask only that Christians hear me out and consider the matter.

Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
-2 Timothy 3:12-15

We'll get more into Christian doctrines in relation to voting later. Let's take a look at dictionary.com's definitions of "democracy" and "republic," two terms that seem to remain blissfully undefined in our society:

democracy (n): a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system
republic (n): a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them
(See 'democracy' & 'republic', Random House Dictionary, 2016, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

This is odd because both definitions look almost identical. Both definitions claim that the power is in the people, and both say they have representatives. These words have been around a VERY long time, so it doesn't make sense that both mean the same thing (especially since there are "republican" and "democrat" parties), and I suspect the definitions have been altered by our modern-day media. Let's go back a couple hundred years and check the definitions:

democracy (n): a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation; such was the government of Athens
republic (n): a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people; in modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person, yet the democracies of Greece are often called republic
(See 'democracy' & 'republic', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 30, 2016 [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Well, it looks like I was right, that the definitions have been altered, and as we can see, a democracy and a republic are two VERY different governing processes. In a democracy, the people collectively and directly make the decisions of government, but in a republic, representatives are selected among the people of each region to speak on behalf of the people. So if we look at the process in which our country operates, it would be obvious to a ten-year-old that we are a republic, but the media (and our public school system) preach over and over and over to us that we are a democracy.

So college student graduates think they have real knowledge because UNC Charlotte tells them they are in a democracy, and of course CNN spouts the same thing to them on a daily basis, just to make sure they don't forget when they enter their chosen profession. The reason the "democracy" propaganda is pushed so heavily, even though the USA has always been a republic, is because the hidden government (the ruling elite) know that if the people are informed, they will reject the socialist/communist government being designed for them, and I will briefly describe what I mean by that.

James Madison, 4th president of the United States, had a large role in drafting the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I realize the average reader may not comprehend all this without some study, so we will break this down in a moment. Madison wrote:
"If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful. From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
-James Madison, The Federalist Papers, Filiquarian Publishing, 2007, p. 78, ISBN: 9781599866420

I'm familiar with a controversy between the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, but that is not the topic of this article and I won't be getting into it. I simply want to address the truth of what Madison was saying here, step-by-step, so the average layman can understand it.

If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. Mobs can quickly spiral out of control due to passion, or in other words, the majority will follow their feelings, and the feelings of the individuals will resonate between each other to the point that the passion of the subject matter will outweigh their rational judgment. Just look at street riots if you need an example. If the majority passions are combined with "the opportunity," or in other words, the majority is given the power to execute their irrational judgments, devestating things can quickly happen before any moral or religious restraint can take hold. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful. The bigger the mob, the worse the problem gets. When moral and religious constraints are desperately needed, the larger the majority, the more injustice takes place because righteous and rational judgment are overtaken by passions. From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. The "faction" he's referring to here (in previous context if you read all of his writing in The Federalist Papers) is the ruling body, in which he gives examples of sizes and compares them to what happens. The "mischiefs of faction" would be problems that would arise through representatives doing things they ought not to be doing, wicked rulers being evil in their judgments, and he's saying that removing the republic form of government for a democratic one in which the people start ruling as a mob "can admit no cure," or in other words, it won't solve the problem. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. The majority, being overtaken by their passions, will almost always do what is wrong, and so any small minority group or individual would be considered "obnoxious" and either not heard, or worse, would be done away with by the same unrighteous judgments of the majority. Simply put, take someone like me, who is but a small voice trying to preach truth and righteousness, would be silenced or killed by a majority mob rule who prefer their emotions over the truth. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. In a democracy, there is endless fighting and bickering amongst the crowd. The fighting never ends, and thus, a democracy dies a death, not in that the population kills itself, although it would subject itself to anarchy eventually if no one steps in, but someone WILL, almost always, step in to settle the fighting. This person, or group of people, will use the barrel of a gun to enforce their ruling law to end the fighting, which might sound good to an ignorant citizen, but... Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. The crowd will inevitably whine for perfect equality, and through that they also demand equal possession, equal opinion, and equal passion. This is 100% true. This is the process through which liberty is lost.

When the ruling majority's fighting and bickering has ended, it is through the rulership of one or more elite group of people who create laws that bind men's possessions (property) and opinions (speech). In order to end the fighting, rights and liberty must be stripped from the public. This is how socialism is born.

Democratic vs Republic: A Simple Distraction As an American, please do not be fooled into thinking the democratic party and the republican party are at odds with each other. The entire system is put in place to give the American people something to fight over, but both parties serve the same end goals, and those goals are not the interests of liberty. The democrats do not seek democracy, and the republicans do not seek a republic. The majority of those in these parties are seeking socialism because they come from a nation where a man is relying more on the government for his aid than from his own hard work and perserverance. There was a time in their inception when these parties actually meant something, but today, they're just an illusion. In fact, most Americans are completely ignorant to the fact that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD; organizes presidential debates) is a private organization (501c3) owned and operated by the republican and democrat parties. After the scare they had with Ross Perot coming close to winning the election on the independent ticket, they made a rule that blocked independents from participating in presidential debates, as Senator Joseph Lieberman explains: "With all the recent announcements, it appears that at least 20 Democrats and Republicans will be running for president in 2016. The field is so crowded that, at first glance, it's a mystery that some of them aren't running as independents. After all, some Republicans, like Sen. Rand Paul, don't seem to fit their party's mold, and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Gov. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island both won office as independents but are running as Democrats. The answer to the mystery may be simple. If you are an independent, you have no chance of participating in the final fall 2016 presidential debates, and if you aren't in the debates you can't become president. Why can't an independent stand on the stage with the Democratic and Republican nominees? Because rules set by a commission dominated by the two major parties stand in the way." -Joseph Lieberman, "Frozen Out: Independent Candidates Deserve a Place in the 2016 Presidential Debates," July 20, 2015, retrieved July 1, 2016, [usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/07/20/excluding-independents-from-2016-presidential-debates-is-undemocratic] I am not endorsing Lieberman, don't misunderstand, but I'm glad that someone is at least talking about the problem. However, what Lieberman seems to remain blind to is that the hidden government (military industrial complex) has control over both the democratic and republican parties, and for another candidate who they cannot buy out to enter the presidency at this time would set back their plans by decades. Most Americans also remain ignorant that there are many parties that run for president every year. There is the Constitution Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the American Independent Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, the Reform Party of the USA, the American Party, the American Freedom Party, the Nutrition Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (which is unnecessary because Rep & Dem are socialist today), the Prohibition Party, the Veterans Party of America, the Workers World Party, plus many more I haven't listed here, and there are candidtates running for many of these parties right now (July 2016, before the big election). Presenting someone with two options, neither of which is correct, is a logical fallacy called a "false dichotomy" or "false dilemma." Americans today are almost forced to choose one or the other, and even in my town, voters are required to list if they are republican or democrat before they are allowed to vote. (i.e. They force you to LIE in order to vote.) The views of all these other parties are ignored by the media, and because most U.S. citizens don't pay any attention to anything outside what their TV tells them, they are unaware that they have another choice.

Few Americans today have heard of the "Communist Rules for Revolution" that a British publication claimed to have been discovered by Allied soldiers at Dusseldorf, Germany in 1919 just after the close of World War I. Many people wrote them off as propaganda, but in 1946, George Brautigam, the attorney general of Florida, said he obtained the rules from a known member of the Communist Party, and that member told him they were still used in Communist circles. Please read these while considering how many of these things are being done in our society right now, taking note of the words I put in bold:

Corrupt the young; get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness. Get control of all means of publicity, thereby: Get people's minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books, plays, and immoral movies. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. Destroy the people's faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule, and obloquy. Always preach true democracy, but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. By encouraging government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce years of inflation with rising prices and general discontent. Incite unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders, and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of government toward such disorders. Cause breakdown of the old moral values—honesty, sobriety, self-restraint, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view to confiscating them and leaving the populace helpless.

I'm presuming the reason why these are considered "fraudulent" by many mainstream sources is because the originals can't be found, or at least, I have never been able to find any evidence of the original documentation. Because of this, I cannot teach that such a document exists, however, I can say that from a perspective of history over the past century since its claimed discovery, these rules have ALL been applied to our society, and ALL of them have been incredibly effective in breaking down the moral foundations, leading the people to rely on the government as their caretaker, which would aid the communist goals.

Notice specifically the words I bolded, that they want to divide the people into groups that fight over matters of no importance; for instance, whether republican or democrat is better. The rules also say that they want always preach democracy, which is exactly what is preached in the media everyday, and almost all of us can recall it when we think of the commonly used phrase on TV that says, "We're trying to spread democracy around the world."

Those who believe in gun laws and want to protect the lewd, sex-craze of Hollywood movies always say these rules are fraudulent. Those who believe in a citizens right to defend themselves and expose the wickedness of fornication and adultery always ask people to simply read the rules and consider them. Whether they're real or not, they're very accurate to what we're seeing right now, and the reason I'm writing about this is to help the reader understand that commuist governments are most easily brought about by mob (democratic) rule.

We can see what happens when democracy has its way by going back to the book of Exodus. After the Hebrews were freed from Egypt and brought to Mount Sinai, Moses went up to the top of the mountain and didn't come back for many weeks:

And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt... And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play... And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them? And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief.
-Exodus 32:1-22

The majority of the Hebrews went after false gods in the heat of the moment. They murmered among themselves, theorizing that Moses had died on the mountain and that they were left alone, so they got together as a mob and decided to create an idol to worship. It was through fear of emotions that they did wickedness in the sight of God.

This kind of "majority rule" can be seen today, thanks to the social media. As much as I hate social media, I do give praise to the Lord Jesus Christ for the internet's ability to give everyone an anonymous status, because when they don't have to show their face or name, their true hearts are revealed, and they become much more honest than they would normally be in a live setting.

Instagram recently (as of March 2016) took down posts from an account who was asking followers to vote if captured Muslim ISIS members should be executed. As you can see from the following image, the responses range from "KILL HIM!" to specified torture methods:
"A group calling itself 'Iraqi Swat' has set up an Instagram account which lets its followers determine the fate of captured ISIS jihadis. Photographs featuring hogtied prisoners have been posted on the account with captions suggesting viewers have one hour to vote if the prisoner should be executed or allowed to live. The posts which have been condemned as a 'war crime' if genuine, have been seen by up to 84,000 people who follow the account."
-Corey Charlton, "The ISIS prisoners who could be sentenced to death... by INSTAGRAM," DailyMail, Mar 29, 2016, retreived June 28, 2016, [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3514224]; Image from same source.

The people that are voting to execute these men are no different than the ISIS members themselves. There is no call for due process of law because when the mob gets emotional, rational thinking is thrown out the window, and those who would call for righteous judgment are either ridiculed, or worse, will be executed along with the accused.

Eventually, the mob always calls for a singular leader to rule over them. In the USA, for example, the president is not an elected king, nor is he granted that much power constitutionally, but he is treated like he's a king. In 1 Samuel 8, the people called out for a king, and right before the Lord God explained to them why they should not have a king like the pagan nations, He explained to Samuel why they were crying out for a king:

And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
-1 Samuel 8:5-7

The people are rejecting the Lord God, and they do so because they choose to turn to their sin, to obey the lusts of their flesh. When the ruling majority obeys the lust of their flesh, what will their judgments be based on?

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
-2 Corinthians 3:17

The reason for this is because a system of government in which the people are at liberty require the people to have a strong moral principle, which can only be established by the Lord Jesus Christ. Without the Spirit of God ruling over the people, there will never be a society of liberty, and even though there is no evidence that John Adams (our 2nd U.S. president) was a Christian (i.e. he never publically confessed the Lord Jesus Christ), he understood this concept very well:
"But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation [faken/deceitful appearance] towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity [wickedness/sin] and extravagance [thirst for lust], and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor[openness and honesty], frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine [violence and plundering] and insolence [pride with contempt], this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions [emotions over reasoning] unbridled [like a horse without reigns] by morality and true religion. Avarice [coveting], ambition [desire of superiority; e.g. The parroted media line: "America is the greatest nation in the world!"], revenge [returning to another pain/injury with malicious intent; e.g. voting on ISIS executions quoted above], or gallantry [putting on a show to make oneself appear brave or magnificent], would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Vol. 9, Brown Little, 1854, p. 228-229, [University of Michigan]

In summary, what Adams just said was that if a society of people (like Americans) turn to the lusts of their flesh (fornication, lying, theft, covetousness, etc), they will destroy the entire country from the inside. On the outside, they will give people the impression they are good and clean, but on the inside, they are corrupt and filthy.

And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.
-Luke 11:39

Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
-Matthew 23:26

The U.S. Constitution, Adams said, would be ripped apart by the very people who claim, or rather feign themselves, to be "good Americans." Many years ago, I was involved in the "liberty" campaign movements in American, and I can tell you from first-hand experience, this was the hardest topic to get people to discuss, even though it is foundational to the goals the movement was trying to accomplish.

And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
-Luke 6:39

At one point, Moses tried to rule over all matters in their society by himself, but the burden was too great. Instead, his father-in-law helped him set up a form of government that had representatives and judges:

And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening... And Moses' father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do. Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee. If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace. So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said. And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.
-Exodus 18:13-26

Notice first and foremost the stipulations for initiating this form of government: "teach them ordinances and laws... the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do," so they could establish a moral people that understood righteous words and actions. They first established a moral principle on the basis of God's law. The next step was to select men for leadership, but not just any men; specifically they were looking for men who loved the truth, feared God, and hated covetousness, which means they were not materialistic, and would not allow righteous judgment to be swayed for a price.

This leads us to the uncommon title of this article: Should Christians Vote? Because typically, in today's mainstream media, this isn't a question asked. It is automatically assumed in our society that if you vote, you're a good American, and if you don't, the blood of dead soldiers is on your hands.

The answer to the question is not a simple yes or no because certain circumstances must be taken into consideration, and we really need to ask the question: What is a vote? I realize that most people will scoff at my asking the question, but in reality, most people would struggle to define what it means, and more still would struggle to understand its implications.

vote (n): a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals
(See 'vote', Random House Dictionary, 2016, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

A vote is your personal stamp of approval on a person, opinion, or idea, and for a Christian, this has very serious implications. For a Christian to cast his/her vote for a candidate is to also express his/her support for their character and their policies.

There is a common phrase that "we are voting for the lesser of two evils," but no matter the degree, voting for evil is still putting your stamp of approval on evil, and expessing your support of evil.

As Christians, born-again in the spirit of God, we are not to fellowship with darkness.

For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
-Ephesians 5:8-13

Fellowshipping with darkness ranges to a number of situations:

fellowship (n): companionship; society; consort; mutual association of persons on equal and friendly terms; association; partnership; joint interest
(See 'fellowship & associate', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 30, 2016 [webstersdictionary1828.com])

To cast a vote for a wicked man is to announce to the Lord God directly that you fellowship with darkness, but the Bible tells us that we are to expose that darkness by reproving them, not supporting them with a vote. Many people, even some Christians, at this point may be saying to themselves, "What will people think of me if I tell them I didn't vote?" As a Christian, your first concern ought not to be what people think of you, but what pleases the Lord God, and furthermore, when you tell someone that you choose not to vote for evil, it can strike up conversation that can lead to the proper teaching of the Gospel of Christ.

In the USA, since our country was developed by the people, for the people, then the more wicked the society gets, the more wicked the leaders get. This isn't rocket science; it's pretty simple, but a concept that few Americans ever stop to consider. Since most Americans think they live in the "greatest nation in the world," and they think they can do no wrong (i.e. there is no moral system they ascribe to; they fornicate, lie, cheat, steal, etc without remorse), then the leaders of America will reflect that because those leaders are chosen by the people from among the people.

To Many Americans, Sin is Just a Fairy Tale The voting issue is a difficult topic to get people to understand because they do not acknowledge the guilt of sin. Many Christians don't even fully understand the connection between sin and voting. For the purpose of this article, I went to one of the places atheist agitators love to pick fights, Youtube, and posted the following question on a popular atheist video I chose at random: "I firmly take the position that atheists should repent (sorrow for wrongdoing) for lying, stealing, fornicating, etc, and that Evolutionism is a religious cult. What do you think should be done with people like me who say that you should repent for sin? Just curious for your honest opinions; thank you for your responses." (See JaclynGlenn, "Evolution Vs. God - An Atheist Review," retrieved June 30, 2016, [youtube.com/watch?v=i0k9NyHh7TQ]) In return, I got some of the following responses: "You are not an accredited theologian... Education is what we should do with people like you and you will learn that there is no such thing as sin... Believing in myths gets you no closer to heaven because heaven does not exist since it is a man made construct." (See JaclynGlenn, "Evolution Vs. God - An Atheist Review," retrieved June 30, 2016, [youtube.com/watch?v=i0k9NyHh7TQ]) First, he rejects conversation from anyone who is not "an accredited theologian," and those are exactly the Pharisees and scribes that the Lord Jesus Christ rebuked. Second, he then says that such people need to be "educated," which actually means brainwahsed into his personal belief system of atheism, and I've listened to Muslims on live news broadcasts give the exact same answer, saying that Americans just need to be educated into Sharia law. Finally, getting to the main point, he says exactly what I expected he would say, that he does not believe there is such a thing as sin, and that's because he wants desperately to believe he's a good person that could do no wrong. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. -Romans 3:10-12 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; -Romans 3:23 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections... And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate [sinful, wicked] mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. -Romans 1:26-32 Here's another response from the same thread on Youtube: "[W]hat should we do with you for falsely accusing us of not repenting of religious sin that we didn't commit?... I'd just say 'go **** yourself'. Yes really, that sort of arrogant gibberish doesn't deserve anything other than ridicule and contempt." (See JaclynGlenn, "Evolution Vs. God - An Atheist Review," retrieved June 30, 2016, [youtube.com/watch?v=i0k9NyHh7TQ]) It's fascinating that an atheist, who claims he has done no wickedness, is telling me, a man who openly confesses my wickedness before the Holy and Righteous God, that I am the arrogant one between us. If this man has no sin, why is he getting so irritated at the thought of being guilty of sin? Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. -Romans 2:15-16 The Bible gives us the answer: The law is written on their hearts, and they already know what they do is wrong, which is why they get so vicious when their sin is pointed out. Folks, they're blinded to the truth, and willingly so because they love the lusts of their flesh above all things and hate the idea that they would be judged for their sin. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts... For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. -2 Peter 3:3-7 They're WILLINGLY ignorant (i.e. they say, "I don't know and I don't want to know") of judgment of God on this world through the flood, and the coming judgment of wicked men. This is exactly what John Adams was referring to when I quoted him, namely, men who try to appear like they're good and honest for the masses, but inwardly, they are wicked and devious. I visited a forum and pulled up this post from a very irritated atheist: "I feel that every one is innocent from sin. I don't see the need for sin. I don't believe I have any sin... Then there is no need for a savior. I just don't understand why everyone has sin. Ugh." (See musicharmony87, "What sin does everyone supposedly have?! A rant," retrieved June 30, 2016, [thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-What-sin-does-everyone-supposedly-have-A-rant] Just because a man wants to believe he has done no wrong, does not automatically make him innocent. Francis "Two Gun" Crowley, after killing numerous people, including police officers, was sentenced to the electric chair (execution), and before he died, he said, "This is what I get for defending myself," which means after a life of crime, he still thought he was a good man who was righteous in his deeds. (See Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends And Influence People, Pocket Books, 1981, p. 4, ISBN: 0-671-72365-0) Al Capone, a brutal and vicious Chicago crime boss, said: "I have spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helpilng them to have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man." -Al Capone, quoted by Louis A. Orlando, The Rotarian, Rotary International, Vol. 155, No. 1, July, 1989, p. 12, ISSN: 0035-838X Most Americans have the same heart as a murdering gangster, thinking all their actions are good because they have good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with those things. Here's an example of the true heart of the self-deceived atheists; after posing the above question on Youtube, here's what a man who anonymously (cowardly) calls himself "creatardkiller" (which means he kills creationists who he believes are all mentally retarded) said: "i hope u get cancer and r in need of a hospital [sic]" (See JaclynGlenn, "Evolution Vs. God - An Atheist Review," retrieved June 30, 2016, [youtube.com/watch?v=i0k9NyHh7TQ]) This is a common reaction I've received from people when having to address their sin. Let me ask Christians an important question: If a man cannot see sin/wickedness in himself, why would you expect him to be able to see sin/wickedness in others? And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. -2 Timothy 2:24-26 More to the point of this article, let me ask a follow up question: If a man cannot see sin/wickedness, how can he discern to vote for a good leader?

The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
-Psalm 12:8

When we see wicked leaders, like Bill and Hillary Clinton, George and George W. Bush, and the Obamas, we are in a nation full of wicked people. In fact, we've had wicked leaders long before now, like Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and FDR, just to name a few. Since the general population is unable to discern wickedness from righteousness, typically, the Lord God would use the mouthpiece of preachers to expose the truth about these wicked leaders, however, today, most preachers in America cannot expose these wicked leaders due to Lyndon Johnson's efforts to silence his opposition, and it is commonly known today as 501c3.

There is no solid evidence as to why Johnson created 501c3, but it was introduced to the Senate floor during Senator Johnson's campaign for re-election, which means it is very likely the purpose was to block tax-expemt organizations from speaking out against him for the express purpose of countering his opponent, Dudley Dougherty. Since Johnson couldn't win by honsest policies and good judgment, he had to use sly, underhanded tactics to win. Whether a coincidence or not, Johnson not only blocked his opponent from speaking out, but henceforth, all religious organizations who signed up for 501c3 have had their 1st amendment freedom of speech revoked.

"When Johnson introduced his amendment preventing all section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations from endorsing political candidates, he was chiefly concerned about right-wing political groups. It is unlikely that religious organizations and churches were his targets. Nevertheless, 'the electioneering ban applies to churches because they share the same tax-exempt status as the political groups,'"
-Ann W. Duncan & Steven L. Jones, Church-state Issues in America Today, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007, p. 197, ISBN: 9781573567541

Keep in mind, signing a contract for tax-exemption with the government in the first place is completely unbiblical because it ends up denying the Lord Jesus Christ and yokes church organizations with other wicked religions like Islam and the First Church of Satan. However, for the subject of voting, it prevents those 501c3 preachers from teaching the truth on matters in our current government, and though many 501c3 church-goers will claim that the government is not enforcing it, the government has enforced it many times in the past, and for someone to have signed a contract that promises they will keep their mouth shut, refusing to do what they signed and agreed to do is a LIE (making them LIARS) in the sight of God, something which He hates above all things.
(Read "501c3: The Devil's Church" and "God Does Not Justify Lies" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
-Proverbs 6:16-19

Sadder still are Christians that encourage others to vote for wicked men, and I know for a fact that many pastors do this, but I'd like to give an example from an email I received a few years ago from a volunteer (Ben) for Eric Hovind's Creation Today. Eric Hovind is 501c3, so he's not allowed to say such things, but this volunteer decided to send out a mass email to hundreds of people, and he quickly removed me from his mailing list after I wrote him, and everyone on his mailing list, a firm rebuke.

In a letter he entitled "Not Compromising Values to Vote," Ben said:
"I have been accused of abandoning my religious beliefs because Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and I am supporting him for President. While I fundamentally object to much of the LDS theology, and view the Mormon church as a cult; it should be pointed out, that while President Obama professes to be a Christian, his record clearly indicates that he is hostile to Christianity and Christian values."
-Benjamin Edens, "Not Compromising Values to Vote," email in CLE archives, Nov 2, 2012

What's amazing is that he claims to have some knowledge of Mormon "theology," but he obviously does not understand everything that Mormons teach because they are hostile to Christianity and Christian values. Mormons claim to be Christians in a sense, but also not Christians at the same time. Neither Romney nor Obama were living the way they said they believed, and both were (and are) corrupted, wicked men.
(Read "Corruptions of Christianity: Mormonism" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

After listing off a bunch of wicked things Obama did (which were all true as far as I know), Ben said:
"The question is this, would you rather sit another 4 years under the reign of someone who is attempting to destroy every value that Christians hold dear, or can you suck it up, and vote for someone, with whom you may have a theological, but not an ideological disagreement? That said, I choose the Mormon, Mitt Romney."
-Benjamin Edens, "Not Compromising Values to Vote," email in CLE archives, Nov 2, 2012

What's wrong with Ben's letter? He never once mentioned the lies and deceit of Mitt Romney.

Romney has lied multiple times about his position on abortion, claiming he was in support of killing babies, and then turned around and claimed he was pro-life.
(See Louis Jacobson, "Mitt Romney evolved significantly in his position on abortion," PolitiFact, May 15, 2012, retrieved July 1, 2016, [politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/15/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-evolved-significantly-his-position-abo])

Romney lied about his position for economic stimulus because he said he was for doing so (which the government has no business involved in), but turned around and critized Obama for his economic stimulus proposal.
(See Louis Jacobson, "Did Mitt Romney flip-flop on the economic stimulus?" PolitiFact, May 18, 2012, retrieved July 1, 2016, [politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-didnt-flip-flop-obama-stimulus])

Romney lied about his position not to raise taxes as he signed one pledge saying that he would refuse, and then turned around and signed another pledge that said he would do it.
(See Louis Jacobson, "Mitt Romney rejected state tax pledge before signing national one," PolitiFact, May 17, 2012, retrieved July 1, 2016, [politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/17/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-rejected-state-tax-pledge-signing-nati])

There used to be a website called "Mitt vs Mitt" that simply paired up Mitt Romney vs Mitt Romney in separate videos where he flip-flopped on most of the issues he talked about. What Ben should have said, if he was going to be honest, was that he was choosing to vote for one liar over another liar; he chose one wicked man over another wicked man, but that doesn't sound near as righteous or glamorous to all the people he emailed.

Ben was (and probably still is) stuck in the brainwashed ditch that convinces Americans they have to vote no matter what. Ben was stuck with two choices, and he chose what he believed was the "lesser of two evils," but both men are evil, both men are servants of the corporate lobbyists, and both men do not deserve a born-again Christian's endorsement with a vote. Ben put his stamp of approval on evil, and then contacted everyone he knew and not only tried to justify himself, but tried to lead them to approve evil as well.

As I pointed out at the beginning, we have been made to feel guilty that if we don't vote, we're as good as terrorists, but when there is nothing but wicked men on a ballot list, why do we not stop and ask ourselves if we should vote at all? If we have a right to vote, do we also have a right not to vote? There are many Americans who shy away from admitting that they vote simply because they're afraid of what people will think of them if they don't, but if I'm going to do what's good and honest by the Lord Jesus Christ, I could care less if someone calls me a "bad American."

The average American church-goer is so blind that they falsely believe they're pleasing the Lord Jesus Christ by supporting and endorsing liars and theives.

Furthermore, it's incredibly difficult to get Americans (most especially the average church-goer) to investigate the truth of matters, to be informed about what the candidates actually believe, so they can make a sound decision with their vote. In fact, many Americans don't even understand basic facts about the history of this country, let alone economic and ethical philosophies, to make educated choices concerning the direction of this country.

The following video is a compilation of news shows that have gone to the streets to question the average American voter on basic knowledge about the policies of presidential candidates to see what they know, or rather, what little they know:
Let's also look at an example of an honest candidate. Before I begin on this, I do understand Ron Paul's connection to Freemasonry, and that he's stated publically he respect Freemasons, so I do exercise caution with him, however, please consider the following:
"Last year, we took notice when Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) returned $100,000 of his Congressional office budget to the United States Treasury. CAIVN editor and contributing author Ryan Jaroncyk wrote: 'Like him or hate him, Dr. Ron Paul doesn’t just talk a big game about fiscal conservatism, he lives it... Unlike the vast majority of politicians, he doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk.' Taking another step forward in 2011, the Texas congressman and darling of the more libertarian, Tea Party wing of the Republican Party is continuing to walk the walk, returning a whopping $140,000 in unused office funds to the U.S. Treasury for the purpose of paying down the national debt. The sum is nearly 10% of his office funds and a 40% increase over the $100,000 he returned last year."
-W.E. Messamore, "Ron Paul returns over $140,000 from his office budget to the U.S. Treasury," Independent Voter Network, Apr 2, 2011, retrieved July 2, 2016, [ivn.us/2011/04/02/ron-paul-returns-over-140000-his-office-budget-us-treasury]

A presidential candidate not only preached righteousness financially and economically, but he lived it, which means he was honest, and not just some liar. He also has never flip-flopped (i.e. lied) in two decades of political work. Paul voted in Congress to cut the salaries of congressmen because he thought their pay was too high; he voted against pay raises for congressmen multiple times. He honors the money of the American people, and has saved them a lot of cash he could have taken for himself. This means he would be a Biblical choice for a leader, being a man "hating covetousness," and he proved it with actions, not words.

How was this man portrayed in the media? He wasn't.
Ron Paul received the largest American peacetime donation (1.5 million) from the public in history, which means he had the backing of informed voters, but the majority of this country is not made up of informed voters, and a man who actually met the Biblical standards for a righteous judge and ruler was either ignored or ridiculed. The people just ended up voting in favor of whoever the media told them to favor. This happens every four years in this country, and if you don't understand why, try researching who owns the major media outlets because most of them are owned and operated by a mere six corporations. (There were 55 major corporations that owned the media 30 years ago, and they slowly merging into one entity.)

In addition to this trainwreck, electronic voting has been proven to be rigged in the U.S. This has been demonstrated so many times, I couldn't count them all, but this problem almost never sees the light of day. Numerous studies and experiments on the machines themselves have been done by scientists and college professors:
"We did the accounting. I work with a political scientist named Bob Fitrakis... They are stripping the voter rolls—and Greg Palast, the great investigative reporter, is doing great on this—removing African Americans, Hispanics, people who might incline to vote progressive, and they—so that—in 2004, they stripped 300,000 people from the voter rolls here in the urban areas. Bush only won by less than 120 [thousand]. And this year, about 80 percent of the vote nationally will be cast on electronic voting machines. There is no verifiability... At midnight or whenever it is on election night, those two guys can go in there with an IT person and flip the outcome of an electronically counted vote within about 60 seconds."
-Amy Goodman, "Could the 2016 Election Be Stolen with Help from Electronic Voting Machines?" Democracy Now, Feb 23, 2016, retrieved July 5, 2016, [democracynow.org/2016/2/23/could_the_2016_election_be_stolen]


The above video shows a computer science professor from Princeton demonstrating the ease with with a voting machine can be rigged, but it's always typically shown in a very simplistic manner to appeal to an audience that may not know very much about coding. The truth is that if I were practiced up on my coding, remembering the function calls and operators, I could write you a voting program in less than ten minutes; meaning that the actual program for the voting process is really not as complex as the public thinks it is.

Because the voting software itself is not that complex, it means that writing in extra code to pre-program the software to rig an election, or hacking into it, is relatively simple. Remote access with wireless RFID technology is also not only very possible, it would be almost undetectable. To give an analogy, if you went to the voting booth and had to state your vote aloud to a man behind a curtain, which is what voting machines are like, you wouldn't know if your vote had been recorded by the man properly, nor you wouldn't know if your vote had been recorded at all.

If you want to get the full picture of what's going on, you can watch a documentary called Hacking Democracy, even though the people making the documentary are completely clueless about the term 'democracy'. A stay-at-home mom accidentally accessed a voting machine company's completely unprotected FTP, and was able to freely download their entire voting software, even though it is illegal to look at by our legislation that pays for the voting machines, but they also dig deeper into testing the machines themselves, and show on camera ballot counting government employees breaking the law by throwing away ticket results that they are legally supposed to keep on record.

Cheating with Evolutionism Philosophy A philosophy is a "way of thinking." That's it; nothing complex. When people are taught a way of thinking (philosophy) in school that they are nothing more than amoebas that washed up on the beach billions of years ago, that they evolved from animals, and the strongest survive, then doing whatever it takes to win is "good" in their eyes. Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts. -Proverbs 21:2 If the powers that be want to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get ahead, if Evolutionism is true, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In Evolutionism, there is no right versus wrong, or good versus evil. I recall listening to a radio broadcast discussion between a Christian and atheist in which the atheist said that right and wrong is determined by "who has the bigger fist and who has the more guns [sic]." (See Gene Cook, The Narrow Mind, No. 945, [youtu.be/bPAnxs6XPcQ?t=7m56s]) The concept of "evil" or "wrong" cannot be proven to exist in an atheistic/evolutionary worldview, and thus, someone who holds that philosophy will do whatever it takes to get ahead. If anyone is harmed or killed in the process, then "survival of the fittest" becomes their justification. I would urge everyone to read our article "Everything You Need to Know About Atheism" to get a full understanding of the foundational philosophies that help men to justify their wicked actions. Without the absolute Word of God, there is no such thing as right or wrong. Rigging an election to gain a seat of power might be hurtful to some people, but it is not wrong in an atheistic/evolutionary worldview.

As I read up on the reports of the voting fraud, I kept noticing that the very people who are keeping an eye on vote fraud are brainwashed too. I saw a report from Democracy Now say that the republicans are behind the fraud, and then another report from The Political Insider that says the democrats are behind the fraud, and both are completely ignorant of the invisible government operated by the major corporate cartels of this country.

The fact is all of this is pointless; voting machine fraud doesn't matter at all right now. Let's say we fixed all the vote fraud in America, going back to hand-written ballots with personal inforamtion attached to them so they could be verified, but then we still have a society that is sinful and wicked--what happens? The sinful and wicked people use their validated voting process to vote in sinful and wicked leaders who will lead the country back into a cycle of deception.

Many years ago, I spoke with a lady from Ohio who had spent more than 20 years fighting for honest voting; I posed this problem to her, and though she was upset, she had no answer or response. I can tell you why she didn't say anything, because if what I said to her was true, then she just wasted the last 20 years of her life trying to hack at the twigs of evil rather than attack the root of the tree, and it's easier to scoff at or ignore me than to have to face the facts.

As a Christian, our primary concern should be what pleases the Lord God, not what the TV tells us or what our friends and family might think of us.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
-2 Corinthians 6:14-18

Please don't misunderstand; my quoting this verse is not to say that voting is evil, but to point Christians in the right direction. If you have a politician that hates evil and covetousness, and he has proved it by his actions, Christians ought to vote for him, but when there is nothing but evil men across the board, the Bible tells us not to yoke ourselves with the world, to do the things that they commonly do, but to come out from among them and be separate by refusing to put your stamp of approval on wicked men.

However, the biggest problem is that a sinful people can't see sin in others, and the new-age "liberty" campaign movements in America foolishly think they are going to change things by getting information out about the evil twigs on the branches of the wicked tree. Some will accuse me of foolishness, and even use John 8:32 as their defense:

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
-John 8:32

However, they're cherry-picking verses, and they conveniently skip verse 31:

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
-John 8:31-32

It is by the Lord Jesus Christ that mens' eyes are opened to the truth.

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
-2 Timothy 2:24-25

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
-2 Thessalonians 2:10-12

The truth that's being spoken of here is the truth of the Word of God, the saving of their souls, that they may be saved from their own sin and the depths of hell. Nothing could be more important. There are many wicked heathen unbelievers out there who accept one truth, but are deceived by five other things, or perhaps they understand the five things, but when you look closer, they're deceived by twenty more. Sin is a veil that blinds the eyes of men and women to the truth on earth and the truth in heaven.

Americans today, and specifically most church-goers, could care less whether they walk in the Word of God. They claim on the outside to be good people, self-proclaimed "Christians" everywhere making themselves look God-fearing to the public at large by putting "In God We Trust" on their money, but inwardly, their hearts are fleeing away from His doctrine.
(Read "False Converts & Eternal Security" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
-Matthew 15:8

Hearken unto me, ye stouthearted, that are far from righteousness:
-Isaiah 46:12

In a nutshell, I'm simply urging Christians to come out from among the wicked rulers of this world, be separate, touch not the unclean thing, and be wholly sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Do what's right over what's convenient; follow Christ's commandments over the first teachings (rudiments) of the world.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
-Colossians 2:8

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
-Luke 6:46

I urge all Christians: Get your priorities straight. If you claim to believe the Word of God to be your infallible final authority, then live the way you claim to believe.

QUESTION: In my country, we are required by law to vote. Should I refuse to do so?

No, you should put in a vote if you are required by law to do so, and the Lord God surely understands when you are not given a choice in the matter. There is no Biblical reason to cause stir that would imprison yourself over simply pressing a button or writing down a name; those consequences will do nothing for the Lord Jesus Christ.

You should also check carefully about your laws; if you're forced to "vote," find out if you're simply forced to show up or actually cast a ballot. It's possible you simply need to register showing up, but when you cast your ballot, you can leave your ballot card blank. If the voting choices of your country are all evil and wicked men, and you have to select someone, then you can always cast lots:

Among these were the divisions of the porters, even among the chief men, having wards one against another, to minister in the house of the LORD. And they cast lots, as well the small as the great, according to the house of their fathers, for every gate. And the lot eastward fell to Shelemiah. Then for Zechariah his son, a wise counsellor, they cast lots; and his lot came out northward.
-1 Chronicles 26:12-14

This is an issue where to men, being unable to know the future, it is simply left to chance. Today, most people call this "luck," but I tend to stay away from that term because it is pagan in nature. From a Biblical standpoint, lots are cast when men must make a decision, but do not know what is the right or just action to take, and so they agree to leave the results to the draw of the lot, knowing that in the eyes of God, the matter is left to His providence, for Him to put His guiding hand on the process and determine the fate of the matter.

If you have two people to choose from, flip a coin. If you have three or more, write the names on slips of paper, put them in a hat, and draw one. By doing so, you can let the Lord God decide which one you put a vote for without having to make a choice for evil men.

So those of you who don't have the liberty of choice whether or not you can vote, you likely have more options than you realize. However, to those who DO have the liberty to choose, and willingly put your stamp of approval on evil men, you will be held accountable by God for your actions.

🔍