Well, my note on facebook certainly got people talking...interestingly, though, of the five friends of mine who I believe are conservative Republicans that commented, not a single one addressed the topic of the note. Here's the link if you didn't read it the first time I posted it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/05/AR2008100502589.html?hpid=topnews
Now, let me ask it directly: if you were among those who said that Monicagate was such a moral failing that it disqualified Clinton to be President, or your parents or pastor said that and you generally agree with them, what then do you say about McCain?BTW, I specifically chose WaPo's take on this, since I know conservatives hate the NY Times. Just being considerate to you guys :)If you think character (including marital faithfulness) is important, and you refuse to consider voting for Obama, shouldn't you be voting for Chuck Baldwin on the Constitution Party ticket? I mean, Ron Paul endorsed him, and he's, um, stable. Here, I'll put that link up for you too:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Some would say that to vote we are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, or in technical terms, "tragic moral choice." I don't believe in tragic moral choice because it essentially says that God places us in a situation where there is no choice but to sin. This is not a biblical description of God, for God never causes us to sin. Tragic moral choice says that God places us in a situation where sin is inevitable--essentially, that God causes us to sin.
Thanks Dan! Great comment.
I think Dan makes an absolutely critical point here, one that could be applied to all of life, not just politics. If I understand what he is saying, there must be at least one choice for president that is not sinful to vote for. Who might one of those choices be? Well, I think by now everyone knows my answer, but let's all pray for the discernment that can only come from the Lord.
I might do a subsequent post on this, stay tuned.
I just want to point out that there seems to be an assumption that it is your christian duty to vote for someone here. If McCain isnt 100% pro life or is just better than obama, then isnt not voting a possibility, or starting a third party, or starting a groundswell behind chuck baldwin?
not replying to you directly dan, just a pervading assumption I saw in the entire discussion.
PAUL/NUGENT 2012!!!!!
Scott asked a pretty thought-provoking question over on our facebook thread. Here's an excerpt:
"I'll grant (though I don't really believe this) for the sake of argument that McCain is not 100% pro-life. This seems to be a concern of yours. And really, we'll never know for sure. So, it would follow that you are then looking for a candidate that is MORE pro-life than McCain?"
I would have to say, Scott, that your logic is flawless, but is based on an incorrect assumption: that the goal is to elect a pro-life candidate. That is one means to an end, but the end itself is to save babies' lives. If this is accomplished by electing a pro-life candidate, so be it, but I think it would be a great disservice to our cause to assume that that is the only way to accomplish this.
I sent you an email a while ago on why I think an Obama presidency would accomplish this more than a McCain presidency. Not sure if you noticed, but I cut and pasted significant portions of it in response to Brie earlier on the note *grins sheepishly* to save myself from typing that explanation out again :)
I'll have to say more about the supreme court justice thing later, but suffice it to say that it is not nearly as black and white as turning over Roe/ not turning over Roe.
the yellow dart?! you're a nut case...Paul/Nugent '12 just might happen if you keep wishing hard enough and start enough blog chatter :)
oh, btw, great question. that's what I was trying to get at with how I worded the post.
Hey Ryan and Dan and whoever else readeth:
I'm not trying to be a Dick (Cheney) here or anything, but what would be the Biblical justification be? As a Christian, as one who will stand before God one days, and not merely as a man of belles lettres and logic?
If means and ends are the issue...to use my analogy, the end is a healthy body, but you choose the chilicheesedoublestacked cheddar fries instead of the burger.
And, by the way, I have never, ever said that overturning Roe would be the only way to end abortions.
Go Red Sox. Hit me back, yo.
Well, I have to disagree...maybe we aren't choosing the salad, since the restaraunt's out of lettuce, but I think we're getting the lean burger with no mayo...
I guess I don't understand the question. Isn't "saving more babies' lives" a biblical justification? Feel free to disagree with me on how to get to that end (in fact, I think you already are), but how is our end not justified?
Thanks for the comments! I hope you'll "stick around". Go sawx!
My point in continuing to assert that neither McCain or Palin are pro life doesn't make the leap to saying that I think Obama is. Clearly, he is not. I am concerned that one issue voters are basing their vote on the erroneous belief that McCain and Palin are pro life. They truly seem to believe that there is a clear pro life vote. I am saying that there most certainly is not. Both McCain and Palin have repeatedly made comments that are very widely used in pro choice circles. If someone wants to be a one issue voter, that is their right, and I certainly can't imagine a more important issue to have as that one, single issue. However, they are deceived if they think that they are voting pro life if they vote the McCain/Palin ticket.
In regards to McCain, I asked whether or not he was the "lesser of two evils". I like what Dan has to say about a tragic moral choice. He addressed the concept that there shouldn't really be a lesser of two evils because God is not going to force us to make such a "tragic moral choice". Good point. However, let's say that McCain would still be the lesser of two evils, and since we've established that God isn't going to make us choose this way, then, is the answer not to vote? Is this concept of NOT voting at all as Chris B. mentions, a possibility? I have wondered myself if it would be "wrong" not to vote at all. Christ mentioned an assumption that it is my Christian duty to vote. Is it? Just asking. What if I truly don't want to throw my support behind either candidate? Is that just a simple cop-out on my part? OR, Dan, following up with what Ryan said in response, are you implying that there must, in fact, be one candidate for whom it would not be sinful to vote?
I realize that abortion is just one of many issues that are vital to this election. (In fact as many are saying, abortion is an issue on the small side for this particular election.) I don't want to be a complete idiot and assume that nothing else matters, because that's not true.
My concern has been that I did not/do not want to support someone who is pro-choice, pro-abortion. To condone murder is morally wrong. I feel like Obama's stance on abortion indicates he does in fact condone murder. He may be a much better candidate to lead this country now, with his policies and ideas, etc. but yet, he believes it is morally okay to kill babies? I don't think that adds up. As you can see, I'm approaching this argument from the standpoint of whether or not Obama is even biblically qualified for me as a Christian to vote for him. Is my logic messed up? Am I missing something?
As a side note, compare and contrast McCain's adultery with Obama's condoning of murder. If McCain's affair disqualifies him from running for office, from a biblical perspective, then wouldn't Obama's condoning of murder also disqualify him? Maybe you guys already talked about this somewhere and I missed it.
On the other hand though Ryan, I liked what you had to say about Obama's economic policies reducing the pressure on people like pregnant women in search of a solution to their "problem". I can see your logic in this idea and it makes sense to me. I don't know if I believe it would happen/help, but then again that statement could be said about any candidate/policy. I just feel like regardless of what good could come out of Obama's presidency, I think it would still be a "means justifies the end" kind of situation. At the end of the day, he is still a man in moral opposition to God.
Please speak up. If my views on this are skewed or if I am missing something, please say so.
Brie,
Thanks again for your great questions and "out-loud" thinking. It's great to have you here!
I'll let Dan address the tragic moral choice issue, since he's clearly the expert and I clearly am not, but on the subject of not voting: I kinda half-jokingly mentioned Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, but in all seriousness, if people can't in good conscience vote for Obama, why aren't they considering him? I disagree with most of his stances, but he is very, very pro-life. He's not going to win, but if enough conservative Christians rallied around him, he could reach 5% of the vote and receive federal campaign funding for next time. Also, it would send a clear message to the Republicans that "hey, if you're not going to be serious about the pro-life movement, then you can't have my vote".
As far as Obama being morally opposed to God, I truly do believe, as I have said elsewhere, that he and most pro-choice people simply do not understand abortion. They've always been told, maybe even by their parents growing up, that abortion is about "choice", not about a life. I do pray that Obama will change his mind!I am convinced, from reading his testimony and biography and watching his career since 2004, that he is truly a Christian (albeit of a different theological persuasion than most of us here), and I pray that God will speak to him. But to me, being honest and mistaken is better than being mistaken and lying about it to get votes, which I think McCain is doing.
Ryan,
Your end goal (saving more babies lives) is noble, justified, and biblical.
I share that view.
So let me preface the following with...
1) you are my brother in the LORD
2) God is sovereign and holds the heart of the King in His hand.
3) We have to take on faith candidates words and actions to try to make an informed choice.
4) We do not have exhaustive knowledge of what X candidate will do in any X situation.
5) We do have voting records, though.
Still with me?
But...if voting for Obama is one of your means to the end of saving babies lives, I still am not seeing it. Again, McCain is not a sure thing, but at least he has a record that is more pro-life (in terms of legislation). You must admit that Obama's record goes completely in the pro-choice direction.
To go back to the burger vs. chilifries analogy. A man goes into a restaurant. Not a lot of perfect choices available. His dr. says he must do the right thing. His "end" is eating healthy. He "must" eat healthy. His choice? To choose the meal (chilicheesefries) with a far worse calorie content than the cheeseburger.
Help me out.
Your end goal is good, sound, and biblical. I applaud it. But how would the wrong judges, and the wrong legislation, at the wrong time move you toward your noble goal? If Roe is overturned, and 20 states outlaw it, that will lead to thousands of babies saved, wouldn't it? Isn't that in line with your goal? And if Obama wins, isn't Roe pretty much safe for generations?
Thanks brother.
I chose not to comment on the post because I didn't want to enter the debate. Rather, I had noticed an increasing amount of anti-McCain/Palin posts and was curious if you were trying to further an anti-McCain agenda or simply (and objectively) post the truth.
Obama Bin Liden was meant to be comical. Sorry if some of his supporters took offense.
I would love NOT to be Republican and I do not blindly champion every member of the party. In truth, my political views are more in-line with Libertarians. Unfortunately this is a two-party government and many times to cast a vote elsewhere is the same as not voting at all.
IMHO, 99.999% of all politicians are corrupt, many to an extreme degree, McCain included. However, I feel Obama lives in wonderland and does not truly understand the issues at stake. In this case, I will choose to vote for the lesser of two evils and cast my ballot McCain/Palin.
I did read the ENTIRE article. It is a sad story but no different than many other divorce cases. This simply confirms A) my opinion that all politicians are corrupt liars, and B) McCain got a divorce.
How is this related to the campaign?
Brie
I felt compelled to respond to the "lesser of two evils" and "tragic moral choice" comments.
We live in a sin filled world where ALL have fallen short of the glory of God. So to bring up any candidates personal sin is (to a certain extent) pointless. To vote for any human other than Jesus would, under that line of thinking, be a sin.
We are all "evil" (depending on your definition)
Also, there probably isn't a single candidate other than ourselves who would agree with us on EVERY issue. Therefore, you must vote for the person who will achieve the most things that you agree with, or, the least things that you do NOT agree with. To vote for a certain candidate is NOT supporting their moral sin, rather it is supporting their political actions.
God is not forcing us to sin, we made that decision ourselves in the Garden.
Hey Jesse,
Thanks for the comments, and welcome. I wasn't sure whether to take the "Obama bin Laden" comment seriously or not, but thanks for the clarification.
I think that the McCain article had everything to do with the campaign, and I think we were trying to make the same point. All human beings are sinful, period, right? I think that many conservatives have tried to hold up their candidate(s) as better examples of family values or somehow more godly, and I wanted to point out that if that is what you are basing your vote on, then McCain is not your man.
With the whole "tragic moral choice" discussion, it's not that we are saying to vote for the least sinful person. What we are saying is that God never puts us in a scenario where we have no choice but to sin. So maybe the "lesser of two evils" wording is unhelpful, because there is always an option that isn't evil in any situation.
As to your question of whether I'm trying to point out the truth with this article or furthering an anti-McCain agenda: both :)
Scott,
Great comment bro. I'm currently composing my thoughts on the whole supreme court justices issue. I'm going to make a post on it, probably sometime tomorrow. Stay tuned, and thanks again for your contributions to the discussion.
Ryan
"With the whole "tragic moral choice" discussion, it's not that we are saying to vote for the least sinful person. What we are saying is that God never puts us in a scenario where we have no choice but to sin. So maybe the "lesser of two evils" wording is unhelpful, because there is always an option that isn't evil in any situation."
Exactly. This is because (IMHO) to vote for a sinner isn't a sin.
In my point of view, when I call a politician evil, I'm not referring to his/her personal indiscretions but rather their political positions. One politician thinks killing babies is ok, another wants to do something else I disagree with. However, as I see it, killing babies is worse, so I will vote for the other "less evil" candidate.
Interestingly Bill Clinton put it quite well during his "politician x and politician y" speech.
Again, one MUST consider a politicians personal life, is he a murderer? But only to a certain extent. Their political position and actions are what we are voting for.
Hey guys.
I'm going to try to make this quick because I'm so distracting myself from my designated study time :)
Nonetheless, let me define tragic moral choice. It states that it is possible to be faced with two choices, decision A and B we will call them. Decision A would require us to sin, as would Decision B. Tragic Moral Choice states that these are the only two possible options.
Let us consider a hypothetical but possible example. You, a man, are being held hostage with a group of people. The men with guns tell you that if you don't either rape or kill one of the fellow hostages, they will kill everyone. Tragic moral choice says that we would choose between the lesser of these two evils in this situation. We could argue whether rape or murder would be "less" wrong, but they're both terrible. Yet, so would everyone dying.
What I'm saying is that God will never put us in a situation where our ONLY alternative is to sin. If it seems that in our choice, sin is inevitable, we haven't considered the situation enough.
So, in my hypothetical example, perhaps the right thing to do is refuse to do either. While everyone might die, then the sin is on the hands of the men with guns. Perhaps the right thing to do is to try to wrestle a gun away and fight back. Perhaps the right thing to do is to take the gun and take your own life as a martyr in hopes they'll take that as the life you were require to take. I'm not saying that any of these decisions is the right one, but there MUST be a decision that does not cause us to sin. As humans, we will sin, but it is because we rebel against God, not because we are placed in a situation where we have no option but not to sin. To argue against that is simply unbiblical (we can start proof texting if it's really necessary, but I'd rather not take the time at the moment).
So, to apply the concept of tragic moral choice to our election, when I say that there is no such thing as tragic moral choice, I mean that there is at least one action that we can take which is not sinful. This might be voting for McCain or Obama, this might be voting third party, this might be not voting at all. Nonetheless, there will be at least one option where we can choose not to sin.
All of the above, I believe, is more fact than opinion. But to move on to more opinionated thoughts...
I believe that not voting is to remove Christian influence from government, which is scary. I'm not saying we need a theocracy, but Christians (should) have humane, loving, pro-justice views that affect the societies that they live in.
If you're not comfortable voting for McCain or Obama, then vote third party... or even write someone in. (Mark Driscoll for president, anyone? The "Cussing President"? :) )
Do not vote for someone that you feel that you will be sinning to vote for. God will not require a tragic moral choice from us. Do not choose the lesser of two evils; choose that which is good.
A very well thought-out response, and I would agree.
I guess this is similar to eating the sacrificial meat, or even drinking. God says it's ok, but some feel it isn't. If they feel it's wrong, and do it anyway, it is a sin.
So, one could argue that the sin lies not in the candidate you vote for, but rather whether you did it with a clean conscience.
I do not believe God will judge a person for unknowingly committing a sin.
The joys of theological discussion! :)
Protest and resistance are also other alternatives. Not saying they're the right ones. I'm just saying there are many, many alternatives besides voting Republican or Democrat if you feel one of these is sinful in this election.
Jesse,
I think the meat sacrificed to idols is a great example.
In one sense, it is based on doing it with a clean conscience, but not exclusively. If I have an affair in clean conscience, it is still sin.
Moral decisions are often not easy if we take the time to really think them through. Ultimately, we need to weigh in three perspectives: the normative, the situational, and the existential.
The normative is the black and white, right and wrong. Namely, what does God have to say about this topic?
The situational is the context of the exact moral dilemma. The bible tells us not to lie, but Rahab is praised for lying to protect the spies. Hiding a Jew from Nazis would be a good thing. This also includes our context in history, location, and community of the saints, past and present.
The existential is the personal aspect...your own personal experience, your conscience, your subjective relationship with God.
It's a delicate dance of the three. But, a true moral choice will consider all three.
NOW... I really am stopping to study :)
honestly, with all the back and forth here and people saying the same thing over and over I'll leave my piece here and say this. Paul Ruebens would be a better president than John McCain. He's even got the best drug PSA for crying out loud. But seriously like I've said on the Facebook discussion abortion has little to do with the presidency and everything to do with legislature. So don't base your voting on that
Guys. Wolfowitz doctrine. PNAC (newamericancentury.org). CFR (council on foreign relations). Any comments?
Uhm, "dangimcool" (I'm assuming you're my little bro Josh), I'm going to need to ask you to pick a less obnoxious nickname on here...
Dan,
I enjoyed reading your post. I believe the moral dilemma caused by this election is compounded by the fact that the church is seen by society as barely relevant and as Nancy Reagan once said something to be tolerated because they vote. I believe that there are many factors that have contributed to the decline of the family and the church's influence on society. For me, the most painful to consider is the fact that yesterday, today, and again tomorrow no less than 30,0000 children will die in our world from easily preventable diseases. As the church, we have demonstrated to the world that we have neither the will nor the intestinal fortitude to do anything about it. In America, we have replaced humilty to serve the living God with denominational doctrinal arrogance that allows us to assert our will or tenet's as if God is happy to hear us blow our own trumpet while the rest of the world is going to hell, literally. I don't think that either McCin or Obama will change much but the churh can and it should because we were commanded and commissioned by Jesus to do so.
Maybe your goals should reflect less on controlling the government in terms of your beliefs and more on making you case with the American people. Or you can always choose to leave America, where unfortunately for you the idea of majority rule is held in a higher regard than my bible tells me this is wrong so you all have to do what we say.
Or try convincing people that you're right rather than trying unsuccessfully to elect people who will enforce your will on everyone.
Or support the candidate who makes the ability for women to choose life easier. The party that provides healthcare to mothers and children and provides the protections to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
The Republican Party is NOT that party.
Or simply wake up and realize you believe in a fantasy religion that the rest of us should not have to be enslaved by.
Anonymous,
Your note saddened me.
Our faith is not fantasy and our hope is in the truth. I have lived far to much of my life enslaved to the world view to ever forget what it meant and how it felt to be set free by my Lord and savior Jesus.
It is difficult to live the Christian life in a secular world but it is worth the effort. The world wants to rob your joy and to steal your heart.
It is painful to be in churches where heresy, sin, and the rule of demigogs replace love, worship, and service but they are plentiful in America. I have been in churches that wanted to rob my freedom and to turn my heart against other Christians because they didn't tote the "company line."
If you have been injured by someone or by some church imposing their will upon you, I understand.
I think that the one of the purposes of this blog is to come together and to reason rationally so that we may each make our own decisions. If we can be edified by explanations such as Dan's regarding tragic moral choice than all the better for us. I invite you to continue in discourse with us. Many years ago, when I was a secular humanist, I read a book that was very popular called The Prophet by Khalil Gibran. In it he made a statement that I'll try my best to paraphrase here, "They tell me that if you see a slave sleeping, dont wake him lest he be dreaming of freedom, I tell you if you see a slave sleeping, wake him and explain to him freedom." For many years I ran about waking all the sleepers that I could find until I met Jesus and realized that all that time, I was the slave sleeping dreaming of freedom.
Post a Comment