[This round is posted late because of a last second massive formatting glitch that would have made the round much less readable. I - The Graphite - am solely responsible, even though my partner wrote the vast majority of this final round. Please accept my apologies.]
BATTLE ROYALE XIII: Round 5a
Guilty in the Eyes of the Lord
Oh, we get it. One step forward and two steps back. In case Team NW didn't know, that's not moving forward. It's retreating and that's exactly what they have done. What a shame. We thought we were going to debate Christians about morality and law and politics, but it turns out we were debating politicians and defense attorneys who happen to be Christians. We said in Round 1,
To get at the principle, let's assume it is legal to kill Jews, as it was in Nazi Germany. Would you vote for McCain if he was willing to kill some Jews? Or what if it is legal to lynch blacks? Would you vote for McCain if he was willing to lynch some blacks?
And they replied with,
Please explain & clarify this question: "willing" under what circumstances? We are willing to support a leader who will kill people in a just war regardless of ethnicity, or if they've been convicted of capital crimes.
Politicians and defense attorneys.
Also in Round 1, we asked,
Two men are trying to break into a school. One wants to kill all the kids in the school and the other only wants to kill some of them. Neither one is personally threatening your life.
You have a key to get into the school. Which one are you going to support, knowing that eventually one will succeed in getting in? To whom do you give your key?
They pled the fifth, refusing to answer. Politicians and defense attorneys.
We also said this in Round 1…
The famous acronym "WWJD" or "What Would Jesus Do?" is a great way of helping one determine whether or not something one plans on doing is something God would approve of. Paul, in his epistles, teaches us that the flesh urges us to do many things in its battle against the Spirit and can create fear in us to do wrong.
WWJD is poor theology at best. Jesus would hang upon a cross and die to redeem us from sin – can you, even if you wanted to, do that? No. Jesus is God. We cannot be God, and we would add that it is blasphemy to talk as though we can.
Politicians and defense attorneys. Did they really believe we meant dying on the cross? Unbelievable. Paul said, "Imitate me as I imitate Christ." Paul was correct that we should imitate Christ, and any reasonable person can understand that he wasn't asking all Christians to go crucify themselves.
The politician and defense attorney act continued in Round 3, when they said this,
They have thus far not even managed to define what voting represents as an act, and without being able to define what precisely an act actually is, they have no hope of presenting any sort of case regarding when that act is to be judged moral or immoral.
Does this remind you of anything? How about this:
“It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the – if he – if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not – that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement… Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”
In Round 3, they tried to show that all sins are the same, as if murder is equally as wrong as lying to your boss about why you’re late to work. Politicians and defense attorneys. We can see them now, in front of a judge in a court of law,
"But your honor, all sins are the same. I know my client is a mass murderer, but that's irrelevant. I mean, he is a Republican your honor, and since all sins are the same, do you plan on punishing every sinner the same way you want to punish him?"
But, Jesus said…
Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”
In response to John McCain voting "Yes" on HR 3010, they replied,
First, when a Senator or Representative votes for an appropriations bill, much as when a citizen votes for a candidate, he not expressing his support for every provision within the bill.
Politicians and defense attorneys. We will all be held accountable for our actions, and saying "But God, I didn't agree with the 'murder the innocent' part, but I still voted for it" is going to stand. Besides which, the murderous provision in that bill was one that McCain fully agreed with, and still agrees with today. He voted not despite that provision, but in full agreement with it. And Team NW has admitted as much, themselves.
Showing complete loyalty to anything but God, they said the most devastating thing, when they responded to Scalia's comments in Round 3. They said,
So as a judge whose job is to interpret Constitution of the United States of America, Scalia's position is the correct one. "Under our constitution, laws of that nature are to be passed and enforced at the state level. I would also imagine, if questioned directly, Scalia would contend that other criminal offenses such as a murder, theft and the like would also fall into precisely the same category.
Politicians and defense attorneys. How about slavery? Should that be decided by the states? How about rape? God gives no country, state, or any subdivision of government permission to authorize or even tolerate the intentional killing of the innocent.
Watch this video of Antonin Scalia himself, in which he flatly denies that our rights come from our Creator. (GodsfreeWill: It makes me want to vomit.)
3:23 - 3:53
Scalia: "You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law. And that law, unlike a Constitutional right to abortion created by a court, can compromise. It can… I was going to say it can split the baby! I should not use…" [Scalia laughs here at the idea of cutting a baby in half.]
4:26 - 5:14
Scalia: "I'm a law-and-order guy. I mean, I confess I'm a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases, on the abortion thing for example. If indeed I were trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe vs. Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like to be adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion."
Host: "And you're against that?"
Scalia: "Of course; it's just not there. There's nothing there on that subject. They
did not write about that."
Imagine if Scalia said the exact same thing about the rape of women or the owning of blacks. He would be politically burned at the stake. Our opponents do not know right from wrong. They call evil good, and good evil. They don't even understand the Constitution. They would require the federal government to violate the U.S. Constitution and tolerate child killing, rejecting the 5th Amendment and the 14th amendment, the latter of which says:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Antonin Scalia needs to repent. If he advocated the exact same thing for the raping of women or the owning of blacks, he would be excoriated by liberals and conservatives alike.
Team NW opens Round 5 by dropping this bomb (emphasis ours):
We admit that we made a mistake in answering questions GGQ8, 9, and 10. We should never have answered them at all because they do not fit the standard which we have set up for deciding whether a vote is moral or immoral. We hereby recant those answers.
Team NW sets their own standard for right and wrong. And they don't quote questions 8-10, probably for good reason. This is important enough to post all over again. Take a good look at this picture we posted, and then look at the three questions they've changed their position on.
GGQ8: Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to kill this innocent child? “Yes.”
GGQ9: Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to fund the killing of this innocent child? “Yes.”
GGQ10: Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to use his power as President to keep it legal to kill this innocent child? “Yes.”
Team NW now takes back their "Yes" and replaces it with "no comment." Their conscience won't even allow them to change it to a "No," and this speaks volumes. They think it's perfectly fine to vote for a presidential candidate willing to kill this innocent child, willing to fund the killing of this innocent child and willing to use his power to make sure it's legal to kill this child. Wow...
Team GG has not and will not be able to convince us that John McCain is an abortionist or will promote abortion.
This, despite the fact that they can’t even deny he already promoted, supported, defended and funded abortion. After we quoted McCain saying just six weeks ago that he advocates some abortions should be legal, Team NW has the audacity to write:
it cannot be verified that McCain continues to hold the same view of abortion – quite the opposite. People change. Our opponents have yet to prove that John McCain holds the same view as he did in 2004. We addressed the 2005 appropriations bill, so let's proceed to answering properly labeled questions.
Team NW has the audacity to suggest that we can trust that McCain has repented of his stance that some abortions should be legal just in the past 6 weeks. They say this without a shred of evidence, simply explaining that “people change,” while utterly ignoring almost all of our evidence from just last month! As you can see, they have closed their hearts and minds to the record of John McCain, without refuting or even commenting on 90% of the evidence we gave about him. Notice, "they will not be able to." They don't care who John McCain is or if he's willing to slaughter tens of thousands of innocent children like the one pictured above. THEY DON'T CARE.
An example of this concept is found in King David – extortionist, polygamist, adulterer, and murderer, he had too much blood on his hands for God to allow him to build His temple. But God called him "a man after My own heart," (Acts 13:22) and David was the standard against which all other kings in Israel and Judah were measured. Note that it was not wise Solomon (who did get to build the temple) who was the standard of a good king, but David his father. Would it be immoral, in today's world, to cast a vote for David? Our answer is no. Our opponents would have to answer yes.
King David? Our opponents have a hard time distinguishing the difference between someone who repents and someone who does not. When God chose David, he was not an extortionist, an adulterer or a murderer. David sinned like we all have but was truly repentant of his sins. McCain is an unrepentant mass murderer. It is interesting that our opponents have no problem calling David a murderer, though he did not kill Uriah with his own hands. David was a murderer, and so is McCain. But, David repented.
(By the way, 1 Samuel 13:14 is one of the most misunderstood passages in the entire Bible. King Saul was a man after the people's heart and David was a man after God's heart. The people wanted Saul; God wanted David.)
Our definition of "immoral voting" is as follows: It would be immoral to cast a vote for a man against whom we intend to rebel because he has sworn to cause us to choose between obeying his laws & obeying God's laws.
This is truly bizarre. So if Hitler had a volunteer army (which he did), and swore not to force any Christians to disobey God, it is somehow moral to vote for him? Of course not. You will recall a very important vote in the Bible. It was between Jesus and Barabbas. Barabbas was a murderer. Barabbas never promised to make anyone else disobey God. According to our opponents, the crowd's vote for Barabbas was perfectly acceptable in God's eyes. You fools. Pilate sinned, and the crowd sinned.
In round 2 we established the trustworthiness of McCain, so we know that we can trust his current stated positions on such moral issues as abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.
Here we go again, politicians and defense attorneys. So let us get this straight. When deciding to vote for Hitler, we can only consider his campaign literature? During the Enron scandal, all we had to do to judge the guilt or innocent of those men was to visit the Enron website? That is absurd. John McCain has a history of advocating killing little innocent children, a history that our opponents did not know about until after they said "Yes," and now that we've made them aware of it, they don't care about it and went back on their own word by changing their moral standard. We're really not sure if John McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He claims this is his position now, but even his own wife said during the RNC convention that he would not overturn Roe v. Wade.
Team NW: "Objection your honor! Irrelevant."
Judge: "Sustained. Proceed, GG."
Assuming McCain has changed his mind on this very important issue, which we truly hope he has, our opponents don't understand what he means by this. He wants Roe overturned and abortion to be legal only for rape/incest and life of the mother and for embryonic stem cell research. This is the final nail in NW's coffin. John McCain has never changed his position about these exceptions. NEVER. Our opponents cannot show you that he has, because he hasn't. John McCain is pro-choice with exceptions. He has always believed and still believes to this day that abortion should be legal for certain reasons. That murder should be legal for certain reasons. Because of this, it is indeed immoral to vote for John McCain, the unrepentant mass murderer.
Our opponents are clueless about John McCain and embryonic stem cell research. He has never changed his position on this, not even today! Read his current position statement carefully. He is against "the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes." Of course, that's always been his position. He is against intentionally creating human embryos for research purposes, but he advocates and funds research on human embryos like the ones we have from IVF clinics. It’s like saying you can kill and destroy Jewish children for research; you just can’t conceive them for that purpose. He has promised to continue to destroy little boys and girls for medical advancements, even though there are people who want to adopt those “Snowflake Babies.” But, our opponents don't care.
Our opponents admitted numerous times in this debate that it's immoral to vote for John McCain. They've successfully recanted three of those admissions, but forgot just one.
Remember our three bank robbery cases? Well, our opponents answered "Yes" to the following scenario:
Robbery Case #3
I am at a traffic light, and a man comes up to my window and says, "I have a friend who intends to rob the bank and shoot the bank teller. I want to keep him out of trouble, so I promised to watch out for him while he commits the crime. If a policeman comes, I will distract him so that my friend won't get caught. Will you please take me to the bank?"
I say, "Sure. Hop in…" and take him to the bank. (On the way over, we discuss how neither of us could ever rob a bank or murder a bank teller.) We arrive and see the thief/murderer drive up, exit his car, cover his face, draw his weapon, and enter the bank. We hear screams and gunshots. Within seconds, a policeman emerges on foot from around the corner with his gun drawn, looking anxiously for assailants or victims.
The man I gave a ride to plays his role perfectly. He jumps out of my car, yelling and pointing; "I just saw a man running down that alley with a gun in his hand and a bag he brought out of the bank!" The policeman takes the bait, and runs down the alleyway, vainly chasing a villain who is not there.
The murderer merges from the bank, glances over at his friend (my passenger), nods appreciatively, gets into his car, and escapes.
GGQ6: Given these facts, have I participated in the sin of robbery and murder?
At the very least, McCain is an accomplice to child-killers. He votes "Yes" to grant money which he knows will be used to kill little boys and girls. He has declared his intention for over 20 years to keep child killing legal for rape/incest, life of the mother and embryonic stem cell research; to help child-killers murder the innocent with impunity. By working to continue this holocaust, he is an accomplice to the murder of innocent pre-born children – like the accomplice to theft and murder in the illustration above. And if we vote for McCain, knowing his intent to help murder tens of thousands of children, we too are accomplices in the sin of child-killing. (Tens of thousands is a very conservative estimate of abortions that occur because of rape/incest, life of the mother and all the little children killed for stem cell research.) Don't believe the lies from our opponents. John McCain has NEVER changed his position on these exceptions, and they have no evidence that he has. They answered "Yes" and in doing so, conceded that to vote for McCain is to participate in the sin of murder.
We guess they do have one more round to recant of that answer too. We can all wait and see what the politicians and defense attorneys have in store for us next. The sky is the limit for them as they give excuses and defenses for this wicked man. The Bible is clear that an accomplice to murder is equally guilty of murder, and this is shown in the story of Esther and Haman.
The Ancient Conspiracy
Conspiracy to murder is at the heart of the story of Esther. As early as the second chapter, two men conspire to murder King Ahasuerus in the royal palace, but they are exposed by Mordecai and rightly executed for their conspiracy. Immediately after that, when Haman is appointed above all the other princes of the kingdom, Mordecai refuses to bow down to him. Interestingly, this is an example of a citizen refusing what was considered to be a lawful order from the government. Mordecai understood, long before Peter and James, that "we must obey God rather than men." Mordecai's disobedience incited Haman's hatred for him and increased his hatred for the Jewish people.
Haman's scheme began with accusing the Jews of wrongdoing, bearing false witness. And what is Haman's solution to his false problem?
8 Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, "There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from all other peoples, and they do not keep the king's laws. Therefore it is not fitting for the king to let them remain. 9 If it pleases the king, let a decree be written that they be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who do the work, to bring it into the king's treasuries."
Haman's solution is to use money from the government's treasury – money largely raised by taxes of citizens, including Jews – to fund the mass killing of innocent Jews. Haman was a lawfully-appointed government official who used his legal authority to fund mass murder of innocent human beings. Haman's order was considered lawful in that society, backed by the king's authority, even though based on false testimony to the king. Haman had testified that it was appropriate to kill these people, but this was false.
Haman was a lying murderer whose weapons were his own tongue and the equivalent of a pen and check book. And when his testimony was shown to be false, as the king was shown the goodness of the Jewish people, Haman was sentenced to death. And Mordecai, who inspired this plot of mass murder by his refusal to obey a lawful government order, was praised and honored.
24 because Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of all the Jews, had plotted against the Jews to annihilate them, and had cast Pur (that is, the lot), to consume them and destroy them; 25 but when Esther came before the king, he commanded by letter that this wicked plot which Haman had devised against the Jews should return on his own head, and that he and his sons should be hanged on the gallows.
Haman was justly convicted and executed specifically for conspiracy to mass murder.
Some have compared Sarah Palin as being like a modern Esther? Contrast Sarah Palin to Esther.
Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus (this was the Ahasuerus who reigned over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, from India to Ethiopia),
Now it came to pass in the days of Milhous (this was the Richard Nixon who reigned over fifty states, from Alaska to Florida),
Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “… If it pleases the king, let a decree be written that [the Jews can] be destroyed...”
The Republican Roe v. Wade Supreme Court said to no one in particular, “Since it pleases us, let a decree be written that the unborn can be destroyed because they are not persons.”
“If it pleases the king… let it be written to revoke the letters devised… to annihilate the Jews who are in all the king's provinces.”
“If it pleases John McCain… let it be written that each state can decide for themselves whether to annihilate the unborn.”
Mordecai said, “Who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” Tragically, if the innocent were hoping that Sarah Palin would stand up for them like Esther did for the Jews, they have been betrayed. Esther risked her very life (4:11) by pleading for the innocent that they be protected in every province. In contrast, Palin dropped her position that child killing should be outlawed without exception, and instead now claims as on ABC News with Charlie Gibson on Sept. 12, “I think that states should be able to decide that issue,” that is, whether to kill unborn children (as though it were a zoning issue). She thereby violates the greatest precedent and God's enduring g command, Do not murder, and rejects both the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution that require the federal government to ensure the states provide equal protection under the law and defend the right to life of every innocent person. She even said to Katie Couric in a televised interview that she believes chemical abortions should be legal. We know Esther. Esther is a friend of the innocent. And tragically, Sarah Palin is no Esther.
We do not accept Team NW’s recant. Notice that they can’t even bring themselves to change their answer to a “No,” which tells us that they still know the answer is “Yes, Yes, Yes.” They simply say that they basically “unwrite” the three “Yes” answers, as if they never happened. We all know they happened. If they had answered wrongly before, we would wholeheartedly welcome this “repentance.” But their answers were right. They had 48 hours to choose “yes” or “no” in response to a yes-or-no question. They knew it was true when they wrote it, and it hasn’t stopped being true since. They rightly answered “Yes” to all three questions, and we stand on that. And we certainly don’t accept their “offer” (which is no offer at all, but really a request) of an extra round in the debate to sort out their new mess. We need no extra round, no matter how much they know they need it, themselves.
The office of the president is charged with many responsibilities, which chiefly include acting as commander in chief of the armed forces, heading the federal justice system, signing or vetoing bills from Congress, appointing federal and Supreme Court justices, and managing diplomatic relations with other nations. Every single one of these responsibilities involves protecting human rights, including in the area of abortion. If we are hiring for a job which to a great extent deals with issues of human rights and abortion itself, and if we give approval to an unrepentant conspirator to mass murder who has assured us without hesitation that he believes “abortions should be legal,” then we are culpable in whatever he does in office to advocate, support, defend and fund child killing. How so? Because we have authority over John McCain. If he does those things, he is a conspirator in those things. And if we approve of him and knowingly empower him to do those things, then we are co-conspirators and that blood is on our hands.
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Murdering a baby is not equal to lying to your boss about why you are late. No candidate is perfect; we’ve never said otherwise. But some issues are litmus test issues, and some things automatically invalidate any man from being qualified for leadership… especially the leadership of our entire nation. You don’t hire a store clerk who freely admits he steals from the till, because if you do, you’re partly responsible for the subsequent theft. You don’t hire a pastor who admits he’s in an ongoing adulterous relationship. And you don’t hire a man to be president who proudly funds abortion and advocates keeping it legal to kill some babies.
This debate is not about John McCain’s authority over you. It is about your authority over him, and how you will use it. In expressing your delegated authority over any politician, we exhort you to use God’s standard and not man’s: To imitate Christ. To fear God and not men, to do right and risk the consequences.