Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., serves as the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He recently gave a series of radio commentaries on the election, and I think they provide an excellent summary of what to consider from a Judeo-Christian perspective when you vote for President. The text of several of those commentaries follows; take the time to read them, they are not lengthy.

Electing a President -- What's at Stake?

This is Albert Mohler for Townhall.com. The election of a president is a momentous act for a democracy. In America, the people get that opportunity just every four years. This election is the first in over half a century that does not involve a president or a vice president from a previous administration.

Election 2008 will make history. Americans will elect either the nation’s first African-American president or the first woman vice president. In either case, history will be made.

But history will be made in other ways as well. America will choose a direction this November 4—a path of national destiny. Voters will be choosing between two very different visions of America, even as the nation is at war and the nation faces tremendous challenges at home and abroad.

So choose well—and choose carefully. There is far more at stake than symbolism in this election. I’m Albert Mohler.

Electing a President -- The Question of Character

This is Albert Mohler for Townhall.com. Americans have learned a great deal over the last few years, and one of the most important lessons of recent American history is the importance of character. We have learned all over again that character counts—and that a lack of character in our leaders is a path to national disaster.

As D. L. Moody once remarked, “character is who you are in the dark.” America must have a president we can trust—whose word can be trusted and whose personal code of ethics is more than window dressing. Far too many leaders have fallen in recent years, and too many others have been impaired in their ability to lead.

In one sense, character is best expressed as our ability to trust our leaders. Keep that question in mind as you decide your presidential vote for 2008. I’m Albert Mohler.

Electing a President -- To Defend the Nation

This is Albert Mohler for Townhall.com. The American Constitution is an amazing document. The doctrine of the separation of powers is part of the American genius. When it comes to national defense, that responsibility falls directly on the nation’s Commander in Chief – its president.

In one sense, this has always been a matter of national urgency. From the Barbary pirates to the Taliban, America has faced enemies. In just the last few decades, we have fought a war against Nazi tyranny, a “cold war” against world communism, and now a war against forces of international terrorism.

The world is not a safe place, and the role of the president as Commander in Chief is decisive and central. No one else can shoulder that burden, or make those hard calls. Who do you trust as Commander in Chief of the most powerful armed forces in the world? I’m Albert Mohler.

Electing a President -- Governing Philosophy

This is Albert Mohler for Townhall.com. Politics often seems more about personalities than about ideas, but elections are always ultimately about ideas. The 2008 presidential election is no exception. Barack Obama and John McCain represent two very different political philosophies and visions of government.

Barack Obama and the Democratic Party see government as an engine for changing the society for the better. He proposes huge programs like universal preschool education—programs that will cost billions of new tax dollars. John McCain and the Republican Party see big government as more of a problem than a solution. There is a huge chasm between these two philosophies of government.

These candidates differ over the role of the individual versus the role of the government, the role of the judiciary and the role of the military. This is not a personality contest. I’m Albert Mohler.

Electing a President -- National Party Platforms

This is Albert Mohler for Townhall.com. Even as the parties left Denver and St. Paul and the candidates hit the campaign trail, Americans ought to take a closer look at the platforms adopted by the two conventions. These platforms explain just what the candidates believe and what they plan to do, if elected.

The platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties are studies in contrast. The Democrats call for unequivocal support for abortion rights, the Republicans call for an end to abortion on demand. The Republicans want to protect marriage by establishing it as the union of a man and a woman. The Democrats call for a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The differences are stark on a whole range of issues, and the differences are there for all to see. Sadly, most voters will not pause long enough to even look. I’m Albert Mohler.

Electing a President -- Iraq and Afghanistan

This is Albert Mohler for Townhall.com. The 2008 presidential election comes as American troops are deeply engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both are tough challenges.

John McCain and Barack Obama have very different plans for dealing with this challenge. Barack Obama’s central purpose is to get American troops out of Iraq. John McCain, who saw the need for “the surge” even before others, is determined to see the advances there translated into a victory that will last.

Barack Obama sees the entire effort in Iraq as a mistake and a failure. John McCain sees the challenges, but voted for the operation and intends to make it work, providing an outpost of freedom in a sea of oppression.

As for Afghanistan, there the Taliban have embedded themselves along the border with Pakistan. Will America leave that job undone? I’m Albert Mohler.

Electing a President -- The Question of Experience

This is Albert Mohler for Townhall.com. The question of experience looms large in the 2008 presidential race. Barack Obama has served in the U.S. Senate only since 2005. John McCain was elected to Congress in 1982 and to the U.S. Senate in 1986.

Before election to office, Sen. Obama was a community organizer and state legislator. Before his first election to Congress, John McCain had been a fighter pilot in Vietnam, a prisoner of war in the “Hanoi Hilton.”

The V.P. nominees also represent very different patterns of experience. Joe Biden entered the Senate at age 30, and has served in that body since 1973. Sarah Palin served in the PTA, was elected mayor of her Alaska town, and then took on the state’s political establishment, being elected Alaska Governor in 2006, making her the only candidate on either ticket to hold executive experience.

That, we might say, is the long and short of it. I’m Albert Mohler.

Electing a President -- The Issue of the Family

This is Albert Mohler for Townhall.com. The future of the family is an unavoidable issue in the 2008 presidential race. Just think of what the nation faces as we look to the future.

For the first time in the history of civilization, we see something as basic as marriage up for a vote. Will we redefine our most basic institution by legalizing same-sex marriage? That is already the case in Massachusetts, and California voters will face the question in November.

Sen. John McCain supports the efforts of California citizens to establish marriage as the union of a man and a woman by constitutional amendment. Sen. Barack Obama opposes that effort—and has gone so far as to call for a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, a Federal law (signed into effect by President Bill Clinton) that simply protects a state from being forced to recognize a same-sex union performed elsewhere.

Thus, nationwide, the family is on the ballot. I’m Albert Mohler.

Electing a President -- Human Life in the Balance

This is Albert Mohler for Townhall.com. The 2008 presidential election cannot avoid the issue of abortion. With the race in its final phase and the issue of life looming large on the political landscape, the two major political parties could hardly be further apart.

The Democratic Party platform calls for unequivocal support for Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand. The Republican Party platform calls for an end to abortion on demand.

The Republican Party speaks of its concern for the unborn and the sanctity of every single human life, born and unborn. The Democratic platform speaks of a woman’s right to choose either abortion or to give birth to her baby.

John McCain says that a baby should be recognized as having human rights at conception. Barack Obama says that’s above his pay grade.

On the issue of life, Americans face a stark choice in 2008. I’m Albert Mohler.

Electing a President -- A Matter of Priorities

This is Albert Mohler for Townhall.com. Voters face a huge responsibility in the 2008 presidential election. Just consider some of the issues at stake—the economy, foreign policy, the environment and climate change, war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the challenges of a nuclearized Iran and North Korea, a crumbing infrastructure, abortion, marriage, the family—and more.

Many voters are daunted by this challenge. There are so many issues, so many arguments, so many sound bites—what do all these mean?

One good step for every voter is to determine which issues are most important. No voter – and no candidate – can cover all these issues with the same level of priority. For many of us, issues of human dignity and the defense of liberty stand at the top of the list. Other issues are important – just not as important.

What is most important to you? Keep that in mind as you make your vote in 2008. I’m Albert Mohler.

The constitution was deliberately written to establish a separation and balance of powers in order to limit government's intrusion on the ordered liberty of the citizens.

Today, in light of Obama's recently unearthed radio interview where he stated that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and where he also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.", the Wall Street Journal published an excellent op-ed by Professor Steven Calabresi that discussed the type of federal judges a President Obama would appoint. Read the entire op-ed here.

Professor Calabresi's conclusion? "Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms."

As Christians, are we ready to have unelected judges make decisions based on their own ideas of what is fair or seems right, especially considering what passes for intelligent thought today, and not based on the Constitution and properly enacted legislation? I'm not.

Some have accused me of being a single-issue voter because of our first post questioning how pro-life voters can justify voting for Obama, who is a pro-abortion (not pro-choice) candidate. I do think you can justify a single-issue vote when the candidate is so extreme in his position. After all, do we really think God will bless a country, no matter how strong its economic and defense policies, when its laws encourage the killing of so many of the unborn?

But (you knew that was coming) there are other areas where an Obama presidency would negatively impact our freedoms. There is a troubling connection of education and communist ideology that we could expect based on his past work. Please read this column by Andrew McCarthy at National Review Online titled "Another Communist in Obama's Orb".

Some key portions:

"The mainstream press steadfastly refuses to delve into Barack Obama’s radicalism, his Leftist revolutionary collaboration with self-identified communists...With what little media oxygen there has been sucked out by the largely uninformative discussion of Ayers (and his wife and Weather Underground ally, Bernadine Dohrn) — in which the mantra “unrepentant terrorist” has been a pale substitute for the critical matter of the Ayers’s ideology that Obama plainly shares — much has been missed. Significantly, that includes another key Obama contact, Mike Klonsky.

Here’s what you need to know. Klonsky is an unabashed communist whose current mission is to spread Marxist ideology in the American classroom. Obama funded him to the tune of nearly $2 million. Obama, moreover, gave Klonsky a broad platform to broadcast his ideas: a “social justice” blog on the official Obama campaign website.

To be clear, as it seems always necessary to repeat when Obamaniacs, in their best Saul Alinsky tradition, shout down the opposition: This is not about guilt by association. The issue is not that Obama knows Klonsky … or Ayers … or Dohrn … or Wright … or Rashid Khalidi …
The issue is that Obama promoted and collaborated with these anti-American radicals. The issue is that he shared their ideology. ...

After getting his doctorate, Klonsky eventually made his way to Chicago and hooked up with his old SDS comrade (and self-professed “small ‘c’ communist”) Bill Ayers. Together, they co-founded the Small Schools Workshop in 1991. The goal — as Ayers has repeatedly made clear, most prominently in a 2006 speech before Hugo Chavez at an education forum in Caracas — is to bring the same Leftist revolution that has always galvanized them into the classroom.

When Obama and Ayers collaborated together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) education-reform project, with Obama chairing the board that oversaw funding decisions, CAC underwrote the Klonsky/Ayers Small Schools Workshop with a whopping $1,056,162. And that’s not all. Nearly another million dollars was steered to the Small Schools Workshop by the Joyce and Woods Funds when Obama sat on their boards. The grand total comes to $1,968,718.

Furthermore, as education remains one of Obama’s core areas of concern — a fact that should frighten you — he gave Klonsky a microphone during the campaign. On the Obama campaign’s official website, Klonsky ran a blog for the candidate, as Klonsky put it, on “education politics and teaching for social justice.” He ran it, that is, until blogger Steve Diamond called attention to it back in June. A that point, the campaign scrubbed the site of all Klonsky traces — a fitting Stalinesque purge, described by Diamond here (and reminiscent of similar efforts to erase the campaign’s false claims about Obama’s relationship with ACORN).

So get ready for Klonsky’s “social justice.” It’s what Barack Obama calls “change.”

Read the entire article, it goes into much more detail.

Why should we be concerned about these communist leanings? They threaten the freedoms given us by God and guaranteed by the Constitution. The government should not be in the business of telling us how we should be distributing our money; that is up to the individual as he is led by God to help others. The protection of private property provided by the founders has allowed the freedom and creativity this great country is known for.

Redistribution of wealth, as Obama promised Joe the Plumber, should not be taught to our children

This election many sincere Christians are supporting the “pro-choice” candidate, making the argument that he is better on many other “life issues” or stating that we should not be single issue voters. A careful and honest look at the truth, however, might dissuade most who are thinking this way.

The following is excerpted from an article written by Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, and can be found at www.thepublicdiscourse.com. He is not a political pundit but one of this country's greatest thinkers on the intersection of ethics and the law. I would encourage you to read the entire article at the website, as there is much more to his reasoning.

“Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, ''forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.'' Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that ''the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act'' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed ''fundamental right'' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, ''a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons.'' In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs.

It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many ''pro-choice'' legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a ''punishment'' that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing ''pro-choice'' about that.

But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies.

It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.

He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This ''clone and kill'' bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind.

This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.

They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.

They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws.

An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.

This is delusional.

We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, ''abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased.''

But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.

But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.”

The portions of the Professor George article are subject to: Copyright 2008 The Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.