Now's Your Chance to Explain

[Neto]

In a way it's kinda' funny - here we have the Calvinists, who believe that God has predetermined everything right down to whether you ever believe in Him at all, thinking that it is imperative for Christians to vote, and trying to convince the anabaptists, who are "more Arminian than Arminius", to vote.

[PetrChelcicky]

I agree that it is funny.
As for the Calvinists I am not certain if they act self-contradictorily. They may have believed that God determines all our earthly successes, nevertheless - as far as I know - they believed that God expected from them to take great pains in business. Theirs was not the lazy variant of fatalism more widespread in Islam. (It is somewhat difficult to explain and to understand.)

As for the Anabaptists, are they indeed more Arminian than the Arminians (i.e. are they full-developed Pelagians)? I have posed this question already under "Augustianism".

In any case their Arminianism extends only to the way to salvation, it's not about earthly matters. In earthly matters, I suppose, the reason for not to vote is an instinct for inobtrusiveness which is deeply ingrained in early Christanity. Inobtrusiveness in the way of "we don't want to force our ideas upon other people".
This would not necessarily exclude political action as a kind of self-defence, in particular when they feel that their liberty of religion is menaced (which it was definitely under Obama and his Supreme Court). But at any case, the difference between "we defend ourselves" and "we force our ideas upon others" is very, very small as long as we speak about voting for a person or a party. Which means that in such cases there can be no clear and simple moral standard.

[barnhart]

...In any case their Arminianism extends only to the way to salvation, it's not about earthly matters. In earthly matters, I suppose, the reason for not to vote is an instinct for inobtrusiveness which is deeply ingrained in early Christanity. Inobtrusiveness in the way of "we don't want to force our ideas upon other people".
This would not necessarily exclude political action as a kind of self-defence, in particular when they feel that their liberty of religion is menaced (which it was definitely under Obama and his Supreme Court). But at any case, the difference between "we defend ourselves" and "we force our ideas upon others" is very, very small as long as we speak about voting for a person or a party. Which means that in such cases there can be no clear and simple moral standard.

This is insightful and it illustrates the challenges of maintaining a pure conviction on non- resistance (enemy love).