John Piper has posted some of his thoughts on voting and politics (the first video is right along the same lines as I intended my post yesterday) and a prayer for the election (hopefully those of us in the Body who can't agree on the first thoughts can at least pray the second prayer together). He's another voice I find worth listening to, even when we disagree (and we do, even here). Justin Taylor has posted some thoughts in response to Piper's that further enrich the conversation. It's just nice to see people attempt such thoughtful, peaceable, gospel-centered commentary. There's no reason to believe everyone holding similar views engages the dialogue in a rash, inflammatory manner, but that stereotype is often referenced (not surprisingly, it's often used as part of an ongoing indictment of Christians and/or God that's already in progress and extends above and beyond the political realm).
A couple of weeks ago, I posted this one on Facebook, and it generated some great discussion (which remained civil to boot!). It's an analysis by Princeton law professor Robert P. George of concerns related to Obama on the issue of abortion. Given that there's a wide range of opinion and perspective, George's analysis is pretty important to consider for those opposed to the legality of abortion, and even important for those in favor of abortion's legality but opposed to its practice. Anyone who wants to go toe-to-toe intellectually with George on this is, I'm sure, welcome to do so—that's way above my pay grade.
OK, this last one's a doozy and inhabits the other end of the emotional spectrum. It also has graphic photographic imagery, so deciding whether to view the link is your responsibility, not mine (that was a warning, in case I wasn't clear): Barbara Nicolosi's open letter about being a "one-issue voter." Not necessarily the letter I'd write (in fact, almost certainly not, and I'm not just talking typos) as a fellow one-issue voter, with some conclusions I wouldn't draw. That said, I wish she hadn't felt she needed to write it at all, because I wish this barbaric practice weren't even up for debate as a possibility, much less a candidate's priority. Since it is, of course we can expect large measures of outrage, offense, and ridiculousness from all sides. And since that's where we are, is Nicolosi in the wrong for expressing her outrage? Regrettably, some forms of passion seem more acceptable than others. Even though she and I aren't 100% on the same page (heck, I'm not 100% on the same page with myself much of the time), I don't read this as mean-spirited, repackaged, Dobson-esque drivel. She's bringing her whole self to this surreal debate, and I can definitely respect that.