These are the issues?

Who would've guessed that religious groups would go around telling you what you should fret about when making your choices at the voting booth? This is unprecedented, people!

It helps you avoid choosing candidates who endorse policies that cannot be reconciled with moral norms that used to be held by all Christians.

Did white hoods, dog tags, and a spotless kitchen just flash into anyone's mind, or was that just me?

But some issues concern “non-negotiable”moral principles that do not admit of exception or compromise... No one endorsing the wrong side of these issues can be said to act in accord with the Christian faith.

Until, inevitably, the moral zeitgeist of our culture shifts beyond your reach, and you collectively try to change your position on certain parts of scripture to once again fit harmoniously with modern society through a nice, wholesome application of selective interpretation.

Intrinsically evil actions are those which fundamentally conflict with God’s law and can never be deliberately performed under any circumstances. It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions.

So what? You're frickin' Christian! Vote for the puppy rapist, and repent by mumbling sorrowfully to Jesus and giving yourself a few lashes. God's law means crap to most of you people unless it means that you get to tell other people how they should behave.

Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.

As is killing in self defense, the death penalty, and any form of military violence. Except, you know, the victims of that kind of homicide can feel pain, and leave families and friends behind. But...pro-life!!!

Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest,the fault is not the child’s, who should not suffer death for others’ sins.

It is true that, from the perspective that abortion=murder, it doesn't make sense to make it permissible when the pregnancy is not arrived at through willingness or fault of the mother. But, yeah, when you damn nuance from the outset, that's to be expected.

Often disguised by the name “mercy killing,”euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.

OBJECTION! While I agree that no one has the "right" to take the life of any "innocent" "person", I do not agree that people have no right to take their own life. Seriously, what the f$#% are you going to do to stop them? It's their life, their body, and they can die if they want to, how they want to.

In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person.

So says someone with the privilege of having not known the suffering involved. Euthanasia not prompted by the explicit wishes of the recipient is wrong. Helping someone end their own waning life in order to avoid excessive methods of preservation, or just to avoid having to spend weeks, months, or years in agony is hardly "intrinsically evil", especially if you think that they are off to go dancing with the angels afterward.

Human embryos are human beings. It is grossly immoral to kill embryonic humans in order to use their bodies as medical consumables

Sing along with me. (Ahem...NSFW).

Recent scientific advances show that often medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead.

Yes. Very recent advances, and it is still a most less efficient, much more costly method of going about the experimentation.

Every child has the right to be born of a father and a mother. Human cloning violates God’s design by trying to create a child with only a genetic father or only a genetic mother.

You're just making shit up now, aren't you?

True marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

You all knew it was coming. "No!!1 Not teh gayz!!!" makes it first appearance.

Legal recognition of any other union as “marriage” undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in an objectively immoral arrangement.

How does broadening the definition of marriage "undermine" marriage anymore than it already has been when you guys make it little more than an indefinite term sex contract? High divorce rates, prompted by the religious tendency to oblige people to get married before giving one another a "test drive" (wink wink), as well as the impracticality of marriage and tendency to cohabitate in lieu of it, has done far more to undermine marriage than allowing two non-straight people to marry ever could. As for "objectively immoral", I respond: "ha".

Our society will not escape unscathed if it undermines true marriages by pretending that homosexual unions are equivalent to what God designed.

You see, the problem with your thinking here is this: God has nothing to do with anything! "True marriages", legally, have nothing to do with your religious ceremonies or perspectives. They are secular contracts, legal unions, a bond between two people like those that have existed in societies far before your religion, and in countries before Abrahamic faiths ever haunted the dreams of small children and innocent young goats. As for "God's design", also irrelevant from the perspective of a society that doesn't/shouldn't give a damn about what you think God's design is.

Do not just vote based on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family’s voting tradition. Years ago, these may have been trustworthy ways to determine whom to vote for, but today they are often not reliable. You need to look at the stands each candidate takes. This means that you may end up casting votes for candidates from more than one party.

OMG! Nuance! Bipartisanship! Knock me over with a feather! (I guess it is kind of mitigated by the fact that they are bipartisan about issues, only when voting for the person that best meets their religious criteria. So...yeah...).

Do not vote for candidates who are righton lesser issues but who will vote wrongly on key moral issues. The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

This would actually make sense if your "right to life" wasn't exclusive to citizens of the womb. I'm afraid that only established, conscious life is worth fretting over, and the best way to do that is by opposing war, having a fair justice system, a working health care and educational system, a good economy and financial security for the already alive. Preventing suffering and making life worth living should be a goal above and beyond making sure that we don't interfere with the birthing process and are forbidden from helping people die with dignity. It's the irony of your position: you adamantly protect "life" by insuring that our actually lives are worse.

Unfortunately, today many Christians have not educated their consciences adequately regarding key moral issues.

Well, that was my daily dosage of irony.

A properly informed conscience will never contradict Christian moral teaching.

Man, do I have some rape questions for you.

Some issues allow for a diversity of opinion, and Christians are permitted leeway in endorsing oropposing particular policies. This is the casewith the questions of when to go to war andwhen to apply the death penalty.

Mostly, because your God is a warmonger, and you are a religion that is disturbingly obsessed with inflicting punishment (ironic, given Jesus's focus on forgiveness). Which is, of course, the only reason why the discussion of war and the death penalty (despite being "murder") qualifies as a "negotiable" topic. Interpretation. In time, the above will also have to fall into this same morally ambiguous realm, unless you collectively wish to give up any illusions of credibility.

Sigh. Despite being dreadfully typical when it comes to these topics, at least the pamphlet doesn't outright tell how to vote. It just implies to not vote for those filthy abortion, gay-marriage supporters. Obviously, not standard of any political party I am aware of...