Question Number Sixteen: Whom are you voting, and why? Please be specific.

By now it should be apparent that religion is an important aspect of this campaign. And there is one fundamental contradiction I can't shake: This President, who calls himself a Christian, has nothing to repent. No mistakes, no apologies, no humility. The only person who could claim this kind of perfection is Jesus. Maybe Bush is confused about what it means to follow Christ? It does not mean never having to say you are sorry.

This lack of Christian humility, this abundance of fear, anger, and arrogance, runs right against the grain of core Christian faith. I don't buy the argument that "Yes, Bush has things to apologize for, and he probably knows it, but if he apologizes now it would be the end of him." That implies that he secretly feels sorry but his political career is more important than speaking the truth and bringing resolution to those who are mourning. It also means that there was a time when he could have done it but he turned away, for the same reason. Neither scenario is pretty or very "Christian." And none of it would be an issue if he had not set himself up as the American Moses.

I was always raised to recognize Christians not by their word, but by their deeds. You need both, of course, but the latter always trumps the former. Bush talks about how much he prays, but what has come of it? Stacking the courts with conservatives; playing the sanctity-of-life card (except in Iraq!); neglecting the poor, the unemployed, the young, and the disenfranchised. I just can't imagine that God smiled when Bush joked about not finding weapons of mass destruction, or called the wealthy elite his "base," or gave a big tax break to the richest Americans, or sank this country into a huge hole of debt, or misled the American public about the real reason for going into Iraq.

Only someone with a very narrow view of Christianity could possibly overlook such character traits. Are Christians (especially evangelicals) so desperate for a president who outwardly shares their views that we will overlook so many failures and so many lost lives just to say that we have a hometown boy who made good? Christianity is a diverse faith, but nothing has divided Christians, even evangelicals, more than this administration.

There are too many fearful Christians who think that they have to vote for Bush or God will be mad at them. But Christianity will do just fine no matter who is in the White House - even a liberal! Is it not enough that John Kerry says he is a Christian and fights for the ideals espoused by Christianity's founder?

There is even a case to be made that Christianity is closest to its origins when it is opposed to earthly power. This administration is nothing if it is not about getting and keeping such power. Christians are supposed to be in the world, not of it. We should be our national conscience, not our Constitution.

If you are a Christian and you haven't voted yet, look into your heart and ask yourself whether Christianity is about fear, death, war, increased poverty, disdain for the vulnerable, consumption, intolerance, and more big business and scandal. If it is, then Bush is your man and the apocalypse is just around the corner. If Christianity, and America for that matter, cares about hope, confidence, compassion, equality, personal freedom, and the sanctity of life that goes beyond the fetus, then you should think again about putting America through another four years of George Bush and Co. Vote early, vote Kerry.


Red-stater Joe Franklin responds:

Yes, Christianity is a diverse faith, and the Democratic Party is a very diverse party. On the left, the Democrats support gay marriage, civil unions, and abortions, and on the other left they appraise and judge the President's Christianity.

America is a diverse nation. On the left, we have those who oppose school prayer, oppose use of the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance, and would remove "In God We Trust" from our currency - and on the other left we have those who inject religion into the Presidential Campaign.

I feel for the families who have lost loved ones, especially the victims of 9/11. I believe that President Bush also hurts for these families. Why must he confess and ask the citizenry for forgiveness? I'm confident he prays to God.

Blue Staters say Bush will not admit mistakes. I say Mr. Kerry is inconsistent and cannot make decisions. Kerry has expressed commitment to Iraq similar to that of George Bush. The senator has consistently voted to cut military and intelligence spending even after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Where is Kerry's confession and apology to the citizenry?

George Bush will keep taxes low, as he has done, to stave off what could have been a severe recession. President Bush's tax cuts benefited the poor and the middle class. What's wrong with that approach?

The War on terror and the war in Iraq are different from any in history and, like all wars, they have created a deficit. What response should we have made to the terrorists? Should we consult the United Nations and wait for our shady allies to come on board? I say pursue the terrorists for as long as it takes!

Ms. Falbo's reference to Fahrenheit 9/11 and the statement about the have-mores being Bush's "base" are totally out of context. The President's statement was: "This is an impressive crowd of the haves and have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base." This statement was made to a group at a nonpartisan fund-raiser for charities run by the Archdiocese of New York.

On the subject of Michael Moore and the Hollywood celebrities: I pay these uneducated buffoons to entertain me, not tell me who to vote for in the Presidential Election. In the future, they will be a few dollars short: mine!

The rich do, in fact, support President Bush. Millionaires in this country are now commonplace. But the real snobs, the super-rich (10 million plus) like Warren Buffet and George Soros, have endorsed John Kerry. These fat-cats have so much money they don't care whether taxes are raised or cut. They could live off the interest of their tax-exempt bonds.

Neither candidate's status as a Christian (though for me this is a plus) or the weight or his purse should be an issue. I don't fear the terrorists, but I am concerned about security and economic future of our country. Sen. Kerry's record is liberal, irresponsible, and troubling. Let's give President Bush the mandate to finish the job he has started.

Red-stater Cynthia Sneed responds:

I can say this: I would not vote for John Forbes Kerry for President of these United States if he were a Republican and the last Republican standing on this Earth.

As for which political party is the "most Christian," I have learned that only erudite, liberal Democrats can discuss religion.

Whenever liberals discuss religion it is always, without exception, based on something other than behavior, because, for them, there is no bad behavior. This is how liberals justify every type of debauchery. They always say: "We love old people, poor people, poor, old people, and furry little animals more than you, nya, nya, nya," while supporting sucking a birthing baby's brain out of its skull and creating embryos simply to destroy them all in the name of "science" (same argument Hitler used).

I think the Rev. William J. H. Boetcker sums up my response to the Blue-staters:

* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
* You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
* You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
* You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative.
* You cannot really help men by having the government tax them to do for them what they can and should do for themselves.

Finally, I think that Mathew Manweller, political science professor at Central Washington University, captures, in words better than I can devise, why half of America is supporting President Bush:

This Election Determines the Fate of The Nation

This Nov. 2, we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication, and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be twofold:

First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis, and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history, regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia, we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracking polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow.

Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grisly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland. It is said that America's Second World War generation is its "greatest generation." But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's "last generation." Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of World War Two, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice.

This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion it may
deserve. I believe that 100 years from now, historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on
the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and
daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill.


That's all, folks. Good luck - and remember, no matter who wins on Tuesday, we have to live in America together on Wednesday and beyond.