I have chiefly refrained from discussing politics on this blog or commenting on political affairs, including upcoming American elections. No, I'm not going to tell my American readers for which candidate they should vote. That's between them and their conscience. There is something else I'd like to talk about instead.
A long time ago there was a discussion on a now defunct blog on what makes a country Christian. Someone said that a Christian country is one where people basically don't sin and live like perfect Christians so that medieval European countries weren't Christian at all since we had adultery and stuff.
Now were I to ask what makes a country Muslim what would be the answer? A country where the majority profess belief in Islam and sharia ( or a modified version of it) is the law of the land. If the first condition is fulfilled but the second not, you have a secular Muslim country.
In a similar manner, in a Christian country, the majority profess belief in Christ and the law is based on the Scriptures, for instance, restricting divorce (or forbidding, in Catholic countries). A Christian country isn't one where the people all live exemplary sinless lives, because it is impossible! The Bible teaches us that we are sinners and there is not one righteous among us. That includes our leaders. To pretend otherwise is to engage in a Pharisaical holier-than-thou purity spiral, especially nowadays when the worst sins are apparently "hurting feelings" and "not being nice".
So the most "Christian" candidate isn't necessarily someone pure as snow but rather a person more likely to uphold Christianity-based laws, or what's left out of them, or at least not to do a further damage like persecuting Christians, starting a major war etc etc.
I have been pondering over the life of Charles Martel, who, most historians agree saved Christianity and Western civilisation. Was he a "nice" person? Born of a polygamous union (and thus considered illegitimate by many), he engaged in war his whole life. He had a lot of blood on his hands, also of fellow Europeans, for instance, Saxons. He was also married two times (though not simultaneously) and (oh horrors!) had a long-term mistress who bore him many children. He probably had other women as well. Something tells me modern `Churchians` wouldn´t vote for him, either, because he couldn´t stand their `purity test`...