If one thing is clear about human nature, no one is perfect. If another thing is clear, this is true of politicians. When people are extremists of any sort, you can be sure that epistemic myopia is involved. As Aristotle would say, and pretty much anyone with common sense, take a position in the middle. As this relates to politics, this would mean choosing the candidate who provides the most for your buck given he is not with you 100%. Christians are quick to side with Republicans because of the pro-life and anti-gay rights issues. But are there other issues out there like health care, poverty, education, unemployment (which many do not know much about). Also, are there other issues that democrats understand better? While Obama is pro-choice, he does desire a reduction in abortions. Moreover, Obama does plan to address other issues like health care, the economy, unemployment, poverty and the Iraq War. Actually both sides do, but the issue is who understands these issues better.  

You should exercise a bit of caution with the language you use. For one, I am a democrat and based on what you wrote, I am good at lying. That troubles me. The last time I checked, I enjoyed walking in the light of Christ. Secondly, you speak in extremes. You would do well to reread my reference to Aristotle. Extremes are dangerous. I can't think of a time when a politician said everything I wanted him/her to say for Christians. Your logic is that if a person is not pro-life, then he/she is evil or at least does not support any Christian values.

The fact that you began your reply with "I could not disagree with you more" tells me that it is not in my best interest to continue this exchange. I am not pleased with the spirit of your post. For one, nothing in your last post acknowledged the misuse of words when you implied that I am good at lying. It seems what is more important to you is winning an argument than reconciling with a brother. This makes me sad. Nevertheless, I am pro-life. Ten years back, I did volunteer work for a crisis pregnancy center. Over the years I even lectured in my classes in defense of the pro-life position at the universities I have taught at. Your reference to extremes is a turn off because it misses the point. As a Christian we are called to be radical and extreme but with love, not conceit. Moreover, it is the grace of God that allows us to do so. Being married to one wife is not an extreme. Plenty of non-Christians are. This is not that difficult to do. Being radical and extreme in the "correct" way is following Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The way you use the word extreme is consistent with the lifestyle of the Pharisees of Jesus time. These men were extreme but not for the Lord. They were extreme for themselves. Again be careful with how you use words. Never did I say Obama was correct about abortion. However, he has a plan to reduce abortions that even liberals will listen to. We need to build bridges, not burn them. Jesus did not burn bridges.

You either did not respond to much of what was in my last post or you don't understand what I was saying. Either way, there is a tone in all your posts that disturbs me. As Christians we are about building bridges; this does not mean compromise. We don't want to live in a Christian bubble. Being extreme is not in itself a good thing. Look at the KKK and Hitler. Obviously you missed this point. Just because something is not the norm does not entail it is an extreme. Again, be careful with words. Also, reread my reply; I did not imply you were a Pharisee. I said your view is not incompatible with this lifestyle or allows it. This also escaped your notice. My advice is that you listen to someone who has a different view instead of reacting to it. I noted clear epistemic myopia in your post. The Scriptures teach us to love without compromise. I don't know if the content and tone of your post is because you are a new Christian or what, but I have concluded that this exchange is not fruitful to continue.