Is it Immoral to Vote for McCain/Palin? Battle Royale XIII

[The Graphite]

BATTLE ROYALE XIII: Round 4a

Whom Do You Fear?



A candidate says "I hate racism, and I am anti-slavery." He explains that he believes "slavery should be legal" only in the cases of X, Y and Z, which would account for only 1% of blacks in America. "I am not pro-slavery. I'm simply not quite as anti-slavery as some people. Don't say I support it. After all, I have a long, consistent record of being against it! I simply hold that there are certain… exceptions. If a black man doesn't finish high school, is unemployed and if his father is a criminal, then in this case, slavery should be legal. That doesn't mean I am pro-slavery. I'm just not as anti-slavery as you are."

The candidate's favorite Supreme Court judge proclaims that while he would overturn a law making slavery legal nationwide, he would likewise overturn a law that banned slavery nationally, because "they're both wrong." The judge is praised as firmly anti-slavery.

The candidate might even get a 100% anti-slavery rating from the National Right to Freedom Committee. Of course, the NRFC itself also advocates keeping it legal to enslave blacks who are unemployed, uneducated sons of criminals. Just a couple years ago, it opposed a measure in North Dakota that would make slavery 100% illegal without exceptions. "We want to establish reasonable anti-slavery laws in America that everyone can feel good about. For example, a waiting period of 24 hours before enslaving a black man, just to make sure it's what you really want to do. Married people must sign a form saying they have informed their spouse about the purchase of a slave. Also, teenagers from 13 to 17 must have parental consent in order to enslave a black man. Ultimately, we just want to keep slavery alive as an issue."

[This post will be large, and we sincerely beg the reader's patience, as we contend every word is relevant and necessary. Unfortunately, our opponents spent almost all of their last post going far off topic (as we'll show) and we're obligated to address the issues and questions they gave.]

A Bad Taste in the Mouth

Which candidate would Jesus vomit out of his mouth? The ice-hearted Obama who opposed even the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act? Or the lukewarm "Luke Skywalker" of Congress who is opposed to some abortions while firmly advocating keeping other kinds of abortions legal?

Revelation 3:15-16
15 "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

Before we even made our "Case Against McCain" in Round 3, our opponents admitted in Round 2 that McCain wants to keep some abortion legal. They did this by acknowledging that he believes there should be exceptions, particularly for rape, incest and life of the mother. If an unborn baby's father raped his/her mother, then that baby has no right to life at all, according to McCain, and our opponents admitted this. Therefore, we're puzzled by their continued objections to our accusation that McCain wants to keep abortion legal – after all, they said it before we even made our case.

A candidate advocates enslaving only 1% of blacks in America, and says "I am not a racist, and I am not pro-slavery." Of course this is utterly ridiculous. This candidate isn't anti-slavery. He is pro-slavery. He's just not as pro-slavery as some people. Such a candidate is advocating evil, and will use his office to advance that evil philosophy. Our opponents already agreed at the end of Round 2 that it would be immoral to vote for such a candidate.

We established by over half a dozen lines of evidence that John McCain is pro-choice, but simply not as pro-choice as some people. We proved that he has knowingly funded abortions with taxpayer money. We proved that he believes "abortions should be legal."

By Team NW's own standard, it is immoral to vote for John McCain.

In their Round 3 post, Team NW utterly ignored almost every line of evidence we gave to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that John McCain, by his own admission, believes that "abortions should be legal." Even the most damning evidence…

John McCain at Project VoteSmart:

d) Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.
e) Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.

John McCain has knowingly funded stem cell research, that is medical experiments on living human beings. He has funded medical and chemical abortion. He has stated that those abortions should be legal. We proved that he has reaffirmed the above VoteSmart views even in the last few weeks. (Do our opponents believe he has changed his position in the last 6 weeks?) And yet, Team NW is still in denial that McCain believes "abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape," claiming that McCain is "inconsistent" on this issue. They even try to make an apologetic for his vote for H.R. 3010, saying that he voted for this bill despite the fact that it funded abortions – that he wasn't really agreeing with the part that said it would fund abortions for rape, incest and life of the mother. How is this, when he consistently and openly supported legalized abortion for those things both before and after his vote on that bill?

In 2000 and 2004, he said abortion should be legal for rape and incest. In 2005, he funded abortions for rape and incest. In September, 2008, he reaffirmed that he believes "abortions should be legal" for rape and incest. This is "inconsistent?"

GGQ16: Does John McCain advocate that some "abortions should be legal?" (Note, this is a yes or no question, but after a yes-or-no, feel free to elaborate as always.)

Let's also reword that question and ask it again, just to be as clear as we can.

GGQ17: Does John McCain advocate that women have a right to "choose" to have an abortion if they were raped or the child resulted from incest?

Since there is only one correct answer to the last two questions – "Yes" – we again ask:

GGQ18: Do you believe McCain is the kind of man who will refuse to stand up for his principles in this area, who will go against his own views and work to criminalize something he believes should be legal? Or, conversely, do you believe McCain will likely use the authority of his presidential office to keep some abortion legal, including to sign bills into law that fund abortion for such things as rape and incest?

Our opponents ignore the Constitution itself, specifically the 5th and 14th amendments, which state that every person has a right to life, so that they may not be deprived of life without due process. Instead, they agreed with Stephen Douglas that any state has the right to deprive human beings of their God-given, inalienable rights if that state wishes. On this basis, we point out that Team NW does not even recognize or believe in the personhood of the unborn, for if they did recognize it, they would recognize that the Constitution does cover this issue, and therefore there is no "states rights" issue at work here, at all, any more than there is for slavery. After all, no state has the right to legalize slavery, and it is disallowed under the U.S. Constitution.

Even worse, our opponents exhibit relative morality in defense of their position. They seem to explain that McCain is relatively pro-life. Compared to what or to whom? Or to Whom? As usual, they resort to mere earthbound humans as the standard for right and wrong, not God. They tell us that all sins are equal – a heinous doctrine wholly in contradiction to God's word and damaging to the worldview of any Christian. They make it clear that they would give a Yea vote for the kinds of laws that enslave some blacks, as long as the law had a greater positive effect – a relatively good law since it does more good than evil. We take this from the fact that they approve of McCain's vote for H.R. 3010 which explicitly funded abortions, as they explained that it was moral for McCain to vote into law a piece of legislation that funds infanticide. If it was moral for McCain to do so, we can only surmise that our opponents would be willing to do the same, themselves, if they were in McCain's shoes.

Moral relativism is truly at the heart of Team NW's arguments, as they would give their approval to evil deeds and to the evil men who do them, all in the name of doing the moral thing.

Let's take a moment to address more directly the other team's last post. It seems our opponents find themselves in a nasty predicament, having found themselves trapped by their own words. They believe they can worm out of this by diverting everyone's attention to doctrinal discussions on the nature of sin and voting.

Voting is the decision to choose, from a group of available candidates, the one who will serve in a specific office. As one's choices are limited to an available pool of candidates, voting may not be seen as an expression of absolute allegiance to or agreement with everything believed by a given candidate. It is simply an expression that, for a given set of reasons, one has decided to provide support to a given candidate.

It is not sufficient therefore to prove that a given candidate has a stance that is immoral, as voting for a candidate is not an expression of agreement with or allegiance to every portion of what is believed by a given candidate.

NWQ6: Do you agree with the the definition of voting offered? If not, please give one of your own.

QQA-NWQ6: We basically agree, with two exceptions. First of all, some immoral stances are far worse than others and therefore function as litmus test issues. If a candidate is right about every other issue except that he advocates slavery, then he is unfit for office, no matter how wicked his opponent is. And indeed, our opponents have already agreed on this. So, both teams agree there are boundaries on the issue of the immorality of a candidate and whether we should vote for him based on that. Even though they said this earlier, themselves, they seem to have forgotten that here, so it requires a reminder.

Second, our opponents seem to believe that our "pool of candidates" is somehow limited to just two. This is, indeed, quite fallacious, since a voter has many candidates to choose from. In fact, with the option to write in a candidate on the ballot and the fact that virtually every natural-born American citizen over the age of 35 is eligible for the office, this means the "pool of candidates" numbers literally in the millions. But, we will further address this later in the post.

Of course, debating the doctrine of voting is a complete waste of time since both teams agree on everything necessary on these topics. This was established chiefly with three little questions:

Question: Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to kill this innocent child?
Answer: YES. But this is simply more emotionally laden rhetoric, as there is no Presidential candidate involved in this election who has expressed a desire to kill children.

Question: Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to fund the killing of this innocent child?
Answer: YES. Have you read John McCain's stance upon the issue of abortion? He agrees with us. [He agrees with Team NW that some "abortions should be legal?"]

Question: 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?
Answer: YES. Again, this is not John McCain's position. He has pledged to do his part to end abortion - he will nominate constructionist judges who, by definition, would never overturn a personhood amendment, national or otherwise.

On all three questions, they said yes. They listed no exceptions to this rule. All they could do was say "yes but…" and clarify that this isn't true of John McCain. And so, what did we do?

We proved that John McCain has already funded abortions specifically in line with his views that such "abortions should be legal." And we showed that unless he is a spineless, lying coward who will contradict his own moral stances in office, he will use his office to help keep abortions legal. This would occur not only by nominating Supreme Court justices that don't believe in the unborn's right to life (just like his heroes Scalia and Alito), but also by signing pro-abortion bills that would fund even more abortions for rape and incest. All of the theological discussion in the world isn't going to change the fact that Team NW agreed in three "Yes" answers that it would be immoral to vote for a candidate who fits these criteria. Unfortunately, they ignored almost every piece of evidence we provided that shows clearly that McCain funded abortion and that he advocates that "abortions should be legal." We don't blame them, since that evidence was irrefutable, and we take their silence to mean they concede those points.

It is immoral to vote for a candidate willing to fund the killing of some innocent children. Both teams agree on that. Was McCain unwilling to fund the killing of innocent children? No, he was completely willing, and it precisely fit with his consistently declared position on abortion, namely that "abortions should be legal" for rape and incest. He didn't vote "yea" in spite of that provision; he completely agreed with that provision. It was what he wanted. He wants it to be legal, and he voted for a bill that defended, supported and funded exactly those kinds of abortions.

It is immoral to vote for a candidate willing to use his power as president to keep it legal to kill children who were conceived in rape and incest. Both teams agree on that, too. Looking at a man who believes "abortions should be legal" in these cases, are we to believe McCain would contradict his own stance on this moral issue, contradict himself and criminalize something he believes should be legal? Of course not. Team NW did a fine job of quoting many McCain friends about how we can trust McCain's word, trust him to stand on what he believes with courage and conviction. Therefore, we should fully expect that McCain will remain true to his principles and use his office to fund abortion and to help keep abortion legal.

Team NW graciously agreed to narrow the scope of the debate to these issues by answering yes to those questions, and we thank them for that, because it simplified everything. It means the only question from here on out that is necessary to settle this debate is whether those accusations fit John McCain. No other question or issue is necessary. Both teams agree that it is immoral to vote for a candidate who fits those criteria. If McCain doesn't fit, then we must acquit. If McCain does fit, then he is unfit and it would be immoral to vote for him. Simple.

But sadly, Team NW further clouds the issue by trying to debate the doctrine of sin, even though they already agreed with us on what would be a sin in the context of this debate. (See above.) They ask:

NWQ7: Do you contend that those who intend to vote for McCain/Palin, should be cast out of their local church assemblies if they refuse to "repent" of their decision to cast such a vote?

GGA-NWQ7: No. We simply contend that it would be a sin. Whether someone would be kicked out of church has nothing to do with the question of this debate. But, to clarify, a church member can commit a certain sin and continue to be welcome in the church. The same church member can commit a different sin and thereafter be considered anathema. After all, all sins are not equal. If a Christian is committing unrepentant and ongoing sexual sin (adultery, for example), Paul says they should be ejected from the church. We see no indication that Paul teaches that a Christian making a single moral mistake in voting for an immoral candidate would be grounds for that Christian to be kicked out of church. However, this debate is not called "Would a vote for McCain be grounds for a church to kick out a Christian." This debate is called "Is It Immoral To Vote For McCain/Palin?" Yes, it is immoral. No, it would not be grounds to kick someone out of church. Yet another question that is a waste of time and irrelevant to the debate, but, we answered it. We could further waste time by asking Team NW if they believe that since every sin is equal, that a church should kick out a Christian for refusing to repent of saying "No," when his wife asked him, "Does this dress make me look fat?" But… we won't.

But this is the moral relativism that is at the heart of our opponents' arguments. All sins are equal, so when McCain openly advocates the legal killing of just a few unborn children, they apparently see this as no different from telling a little white lie, so they file it under the list of sins that won't get a person kicked out of church.

Haman was a lawfully-appointed government official who gave a lawful order to fund the killing of innocent people. Without having to wield a sword, he was guilty of conspiracy to murder and deserving of death. It would be immoral to vote for Haman for government office. We gave this biblical example, and then provided a much more recent real-world example in the form of Karl Sommer, a lawfully-appointed bureaucrat who wielded only a pen and ledger but who was guilty of conspiracy to slavery and murder and deserving of death. We mentioned Sommer not out of a supposedly humanist idea that mere men should be our standard, but rather to show a modern Haman as a much more tangible and relatable example in very recent history, to show a modern application of the biblical standard given in the story of Haman, and how it played out appropriately in a secular court. And it would be immoral to vote for Karl Sommer for government office. The other team agrees these two men were guilty.

But our opponents then turn to John McCain, who also funded exactly the kinds of abortions that he wants to remain legal, and their reasoning suddenly becomes clouded. Somehow, McCain signed H.R. 3010 despite the fact that it funded the exact kinds of abortions he wants to remain legal. And then, our opponents try to suggest that we have only two choices for our vote for president.

NWQ8: Which candidates are on the ballot in a sufficient number of states to even have the mathematical possibility of being elected President?

GGA-NWQ8: In every presidential election, there are millions of valid candidates for the office of president. I (The Graphite) am a candidate, as I am older than 35 and am a natural-born citizen. Feel free to write my name in on your ballot in November – James A. Schofield. And, if enough people in the United States vote for me in November, it is mathematically possible for me to be elected president. Is it likely? No. Is it mathematically possible? Absolutely. Any citizen meeting those requirements is a valid candidate.

NWQ9: Which candidates have the support of even a scant 10% of the US population?

GGA-NWQ9: Unknown, since polls are not mathematically certain for two reasons. First, they don't actually survey every eligible voter in America, and second, those voters may change their mind between now and November 11th. Further, since when do our moral choices depend on what we think everyone else will probably do a month from now? A rhetorical question, because it doesn't matter. We should do the moral thing, even if every other person in America intends to do the immoral thing.

NWQ10: What is the benefit of a vote cast for a candidate who cannot win?

GGA-NWQ10: This question is 50% illogical and 50% great. It is illogical because there are no candidates "who cannot win." I can win. Alan Keyes can win. Paris Hilton can win. Any valid candidate can win if enough people vote for that person, thereby giving them enough electoral votes. If I don't win, it will be because people make that free will choice on November 4th. Not because the candidate "cannot win." However, it is a great question because it raises the issue of what is the benefit of voting for a candidate who seemingly has little chance of winning.

If a voter votes for a godly (though imperfect) candidate rather than an unrepentant advocate of infanticide, the most obvious benefit is that the voter actually does the right thing. This has inherent value. Second, every vote for such a candidate adds to the likelihood that he will win the election. That godly candidate will lose for no other reason than because too few people voted for him. When you create imaginary requirements to vote for only one of the two main candidates, you may prohibit yourself from doing the right thing, which then traps you in moral relativity, which then presses you into making excuses for unrepentantly wicked men like John McCain who – we'll say it again – funds abortions and advocates that "abortions should be legal."

The Democrats vs. the Whigs vs. the Republicans

Should we be afraid to vote for anyone other than the two main parties? After all, wasn't this nation founded by the Democrat and Republican parties? In fact, no. No existing political party in America even existed when this nation was founded. The idea that these two parties are the only viable options for voters is, in fact, a very un-American notion.

Let's go back to the beginning… During George Washington's terms, there was the Anti-Administration Party, which fell away and was replaced by the Democratic-Republican Party, which then was replaced by the National Republicans, which was succeeded by the Whig Party, which then faltered and saw the rise of the Republican Party which we know today. America has a long history of voting for "third parties" all the way back to the founding era of our country.

The Democratic Party is the older of the two we have now. Even though the GOP is the "grand old party," it isn't as old as the Democrats, which was founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson and other anti-federalists. The Republican Party's origins go back to the mid-19th century, not long before the Civil War, founded primarily by abolitionists and their sympathizers. It replaced the Whig Party.

The Whig party was named after the Whigs who had fought for America's independence against the British-loyal Tories. It existed for only two decades and got two presidents in office in that time, but in the 1850s was becoming increasingly morally compromised and irrelevant. How so?

While this may seem like a weary history lesson, we beg your patience just a little further, because this remarkable time in history had amazing parallels to our own.

What ultimately destroyed the Whigs? The slavery issue. Frankly, many in the Whig Party cared little about slavery. The Missouri Compromise had banned slavery in many western American territories while affirmatively allowing it in other territories. This created the initial rift in the Whigs, as abolitionist Christians rightly saw this as an immoral law that affirmed slavery. While the law's proponents were well-intentioned, it was a compromise … with the devil. And some Whigs began leaving the party, refusing to be a part of such a moral compromise.

The Missouri Compromise was repealed with the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, also supported by many Whigs. This act said that territories could decide for themselves whether to legalize slavery – basically a "states rights" argument except for territories. It was the Stephen Douglas argument – every state (or in this case, territory) should have the right to have legal slavery or to abolish it. Many Whigs supported this abominable insult to human rights and increasingly defended some degree of slavery. In other words, they were against slavery but allowed exceptions. Many decent Christian abolitionists refused to compromise their principles, refused to compromise on God's standard of right and wrong. And this shattered the Whig Party and brought it to an end. The courage of those uncompromising individuals gave birth to the Republican Party, all because they were brave enough to "go third party." They recognized that it would have been immoral to keep supporting the Whigs.

Were voters wrong to vote Republican instead of Whig in those days? America's history might have been terribly different had they not done so, had the voters abandoned principle and simply maintained absolute loyalty to the conservative party that had given them two presidents within a generation.

- "Please vote Whig! We must elect a Whig to the White House in order to veto bills from the Democrats in Congress!"

- "Vote Whig so we can get more Whig judges on the Supreme Court!"

- "A vote for Republicans will only help the Democrats! Don't waste your vote on a Republican!"

Such would have been the cries of those hard-line, party-first Whig loyalists. Men acting out of fear of political defeat rather than out of faith in our Creator's standard of right and wrong. Thank God some Americans abandoned the morally compromised Whig Party, and "went third party" for the Republicans of the mid-19th century. If they had not courageously supported a "third party" back then, we wouldn't even have a Republican Party today. If Abraham Lincoln had not abandoned the Whig Party and joined the Republicans… God help us all.

Wilbur Analogy

If a voter doesn't vote for one of the two main parties, is he helping the main party he doesn't belong to? This is a fallacy, as we will demonstrate with the unfortunate story of Wilbur.

Our friend Wilbur was a Republican his whole life. As a very conservative pro-lifer, he voted for Bush both times. But now in 2008, he is very disappointed in John McCain, so much so that he can't bring himself to vote for McCain. (Perhaps he will vote third party, or simply won't vote. Either way works here.) Of course, Wilbur's elephantine friends admonish him, saying "If you don't vote for McCain, you're helping Obama. You must vote your party."

Wilbur's frustration grows, but he stands firm; he will not vote for McCain.

But then, the evening of November 3rd, Wilbur cracks open a case of Michelob with an old hippy named Nick, and by morning Ol' Nick convinces Wilbur he's been wrong all along. As the sun comes up on Election Day, Wilbur is a new man – a Democrat! He believes in bigger government and the Robin Hood transfer of wealth, he wants open borders, and he is pro-choice. And yet… he really doesn't like Obama, mainly because of his lack of experience plus ethical concerns about Obama's character. Wilbur is a Democrat, but he won't vote for Obama.

Of course, his asinine friends berate him, saying "If you don't vote for Obama, you're helping McCain. You must vote your party!" And Wilbur's frustration simmers on, but he is adamant; he will not vote for Obama. And the election comes and goes.

Now, just 24 hours earlier, Wilbur's non-vote was supposedly helping the Democrats. But now, somehow, perhaps magically, his non-vote is suddenly aiding the Republicans.

Same man, same complete lack of vote... Did his change in party affiliation actually transfer any benefit from Obama to McCain, or transfer any harm from McCain to Obama? Of course not. McCain and Obama did just as well as they did with his non-vote in place, regardless of which party he belonged to on that particular day! They each got the same number of votes, regardless of Wilbur's current party affiliation. His non-vote didn't aid either side. Such benefit is completely imaginary and mythical, like dragons and unicorns and 4-point Calvinists...

A vote for a candidate helps that candidate. Withholding a vote from a candidate helps no one. We don't understand how some people can argue in one moment that a politician is not responsible when he refuses to act to end or reduce abortions, and then argue later that refusing to vote for the Republican Party candidate makes one culpable for the Democrat winning? This kind of self-contradiction in many hardline Republican loyalists can be very confusing. We're thankful that Team NW hasn't resorted to this, at least not yet.

When given choices A and B, a wise man often chooses C

In truth, we are never forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Indeed, Jesus Christ came into this world to make sure we would always have a right choice, a righteous choice, to make sure that we can always have the option of doing the right thing if we choose. Without Him, those lost in the world are stuck with the moral relativism of choosing whatever man-made god is best suited to them. But, with Him, we can stand in faith, even in the face of seemingly impossible odds, and overcome evil with good, because all things are possible through Christ. You look around for the right choice, and if you don't see a right choice.... then you are the right choice, and you can step up and be that right choice for others.

There is always a right choice. We are never forced to choose between two evils. Jesus knew this and lived it.

You know what happens when you make an assumption...

But, too many live in fear. Too many fear mere men like Obama and what he will do instead of fearing our righteous Lord and standing on His righteousness in faith, even against all odds and the threat of death itself. Too many base their moral choices on fear instead of faith. And the hardline Republican loyalists are guilty of this. "Don't vote third-party and throw your vote away because it will help Obama," they say. But their admonition is based on a fear and a massive assumption.

How is it that 50 million other people may vote for a man who advocates that "abortions should be legal," and I vote for a genuinely pro-life candidate, but if the Democrat gets elected, they McCain voters are hailed as doing the right thing and I am morally responsible for the deaths of unborn children? 50 million others voted for a conspirator to murder, and I voted for a decent, godly man, but I am guilty and they are righteous?

If Obama wins in November and someone claims that every vote for Alan Keyes helped Obama defeat McCain... then It is just as true that if Obama wins in November, that every person who voted for McCain "helped" Obama defeat Alan Keyes! If only they had voted for Alan Keyes... If they had, Obama would have been defeated! But no, the McCain supporters split the vote and took away the chance for Keyes to defeat Obama, thus putting a real pro-lifer in the Oval Office.

Of course, a vote for McCain doesn't help Obama beat Keyes, any more than a vote for Keyes helps Obama defeat McCain. It's all just imaginary numbers distorted by fear -- fear of Obama, and fear of all of the other conservative voters.

They're afraid of what they assume millions of other conservative voters will do a month from now. They base their choice not on principle but on the idea that millions of others will vote for a man who believes "abortions should be legal," so if they don't also vote for McCain, they will somehow help the even worse candidate. The irony is that most of the other millions of conservatives also don't like McCain, but they're afraid that you will vote for him, and so they will do what they assume you're going to do, as well! Such voters are afraid of two things – Obama, and each other. It's a massive delusion created by political loyalists to bind decent conservative voters in fear of an imaginary boogie man, "el cu cuy," the monster under the bed.

Even if Obama promises to have every Christian in America executed on Jan 21st, 2009, we should not fear him. We should not fear the one who can kill the body. We should only fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell. Acting out of fear is not acting out of faith.

Any man who knowingly funds mass killing of babies and who openly agrees that "abortions should be legal" is evil. Such a man could someday be convicted at a Nuremberg II. As a third-party candidate recently remarked, "It is the devil with his mask off... chasing us into the arms of the devil with his mask on." It is the man with a heart as cold as ice... scaring us into voting for the lukewarm candidate who claims to be pro-life, sometimes even in the same breath the he affirms that "abortion should be legal." The man whom Jesus Christ would vomit out of his mouth. That is our hero, our champion, our hope for the future? No, it is a deal with the devil. The devil with his mask on.

Matthew 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Luke 12:4-5
4 "And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!

The other team agrees it's immoral to vote for a candidate that fits the criteria we gave.

Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to kill an innocent child? They answered, "Yes."

Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to fund the killing of an innocent child? They answered, "Yes."

Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to use his power as President to keep it legal to kill an innocent child? They answered "Yes."

The other team has not denied that McCain wants to fund embryonic stem-cell research, and in fact, he has done so. The other team has not denied that McCain was willing to fund abortions. They have not denied that he advocates that "abortion should be legal," and therefore they have failed to refute that he is willing to use his power as president to keep it legal to kill an innocent child in some circumstances.

McCain fits those criteria. McCain has funded stem cell research. He has funded medical and chemical abortions. And he will keep it legal to kill the innocent child of a rapist. Therefore, even by Team NW's standard, it is immoral to vote for John McCain.

Nevertheless, our opponents seem to argue that since John McCain would oppose most abortions, that excuses his intention to keep abortion legal for a few abortions, thus making him relatively pro-life. Rape and incest exceptions account for roughly 1% of abortions in America. Modest estimates place the total number of abortions in the neighborhood of 1 million per year. So, 1% of that would be 10,000 per year. McCain has helped fund many of those 10,000 infanticides per year, and he intends to work toward keeping abortion legal for those approximately 10,000 abortions per year. And yet they claim it is a moral act to vote for him. But, we have to wonder… if McCain were to defend, support and fund only 5,000 infanticides a year, would that make it twice as easy to vote for him? If it were only 1,000 babies a year, would it be 10 times as easy?

The Altar of Stone

Imagine if John McCain came out with a 100% pro-life position, with no exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother, with the exception that once a year, he would authorize the sacrifice of just one 6-month-old baby on a stone altar with a knife… Would it be 10,000 times easier to vote for him? Would it be even a little easier? Just think – he could pay someone else to do it (with taxpayer money from you and me), so that he doesn't get his hands dirty. Just like Haman, just like the Jerusalem priests 2000 years ago, just like Karl Sommer, he could simply give the authorization to fund the killing of this one, single infant per year. Imagine all the innocent lives that could be saved. If you were a senator, would you sign that into law? As a voter, would you cast a vote for a man who advocated doing that? He wouldn't do it himself; he wouldn't be guilty of murder. He would simply advocate, defend, support and fund that single, solitary infanticide... almost no abortions at all.

GGQ19: A) Would you vote for that candidate? B) Would you vote for such a law as a senator?

[Knight]

The team of nicholsmom and WandereerInFog (NW) are now back on the clock and have until 10:10PM (MDT) on October 10th (that's a lot of 10's) to make their 4th round post.

Have an opinion about what the team of GodsfreeWill and The Graphite (GG) just posted? Feel free to discuss this battle here.

[nicholsmom]

Moving Forward
C.S. Lewis on Progress

"If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. We have seen this when we do arithmetic. When I have started a sum the wrong way, the sooner I admit this and go back and start over again, the faster I shall get on. There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake."
From Mere Christianity

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. We are sorry that we allowed our opponents to go down that rabbit trail. We would agree to adding another round if our opponents wish to go a different direction.

Team GG has not and will not be able to convince us that John McCain is an abortionist or will promote abortion. They have assumed wrongly that we are ignorant of the details of McCain's voting record & past statements. There is no evidence which we have not already seen. That we continue to contend that a vote cast for McCain/Palin is not immoral proves that we do not believe that these votes or statements cast him out of the pool of candidates.

An example of this concept is found in King David.
King David, extortionist, polygamist, adulterer, and murder 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 Soloman (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.

A Couple of Important Definitions

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.

Here is a definition of "voting" upon which we all have agreed (see their answer to NWQ6):

Voting is the decision to choose, from a group of available candidates, the one who will serve in a specific office. As one's choices are limited to an available pool of candidates, voting may not be seen as an expression of absolute allegiance to, or agreement with everything believed by a given candidate. It is simply an expression that, for a given set of reasons, one has decided to provide support to a given candidate.
It is not sufficient therefore to prove that a given candidate has a stance that is immoral, as voting for a candidate is not an expression of agreement with, or allegiance to every portion of what is believed by a given candidate.

Our opponents add to that the condition that the candidates may be subjected to a universal litmus test and that there are more than two candidates. To which we respond no, and a "pool" means a pool not a pair, so the second objection is moot and the first rather arbitrary. We stick to our original, unaltered definition of voting which requires no litmus test.

The Practical Aspect of Voting
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. Since we can trust his word, let's have a look at those positions:

Overturning Roe v. Wade
John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

...[concerning the work of pro-life organizations]This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, "At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level."

Addressing the Moral Concerns of Advanced Technology
... the compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles.

For this reason, John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law.

As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

We see no signs of trouble here. John McCain would not attempt to force us to be complicit in vile crimes. So we are at liberty to check out McCain's other stated positions to evaluate his candidacy upon a political basis. But we leave that to the individual voter.

Having met the first and second challenges of choosing a candidate, we move on to the third category for consideration: the practical implications of casting a vote for a particular candidate. But before we look at those implications, let's review the importance of making such an evaluation.

In this passage, Jesus uses an illustration to teach about the sacrifice of discipleship. It is the illustration that interests us here:

"Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace."
Luke 14:31-32

Yes, this example is intended to help us realize the great cost of discipleship. But let's ask ourselves, would Jesus use foolishness to discribe the choice to be His disciple? No; He uses wise decision-making strategies to illustrate the wise use of a base of knowledge and understanding of the costs, risks, and possible sacrifices, before making a very important choice. Count the cost: a part of that cost is a willingness to surrender some ground to the enemy when a battle is not winnable - that it is sometimes wise to accept a limited victory or even a stalemate in a battle in order to later win the war.

Since our opponents put such importance in this debate upon the issue of abortion, we will use it as an example. We are at war against abortion. How shall we win that war? We need more battle plan than kamakazie-strikes upon the candidates or their parties. We need to keep an eye to the goal: in this case, abolition of abortion. We need to choose our battles well; where to expend our limited resources (votes included) and where to withhold them. We need a better plan.

How can we build a better plan? Here's a start: count the cost. Another illustration of the weightiness of choosing to be a disciple of Christ is given by Him just before the battle illustration:

"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'"
Luke 14:28-30

We want to finish our tower; we want to win our war. Let's count the cost. What will it take to eliminate abortion.

We have two apparant plans for eliminating abortion:

1)Get Roe v. Wade overturned so that the states can make it illegal. The chances are slim to none that [i]all States[i] would make abortion illegal, so not the best route to our goal.
2)Ratify a personhood amendment upon the US Constitution.

Since plan 1 is not the best route, let's look at plan 2. What will it take to get such an amendment ratified by the Congress of the USA?

1. We need grassroots support for this type of ammendment. A good beginning on that is to have state trials of the amendment. Colorado first. Will the amendment pass in CO?
2. If passed, will it make it past the current SCotUS?
3. If it fails, is re-written, and passes, will it survive the SCotUS with new appointees nominated by the next president of the USA?

It isn't a matter of "wishing on a star" or even a matter of prayer alone, though praying is always recommended; (James 2:16) it is a matter of choosing our battle strategy wisely.

But abortion is not our only enemy. We are at war against all sorts of immorality in our nation; we are at war against terrorism; we are at war to maintain and regain our freedoms; we are at war to maintain our society as a whole. We are surrounded by enemies, but there is hope. We have Almighty God upon our side. With Him at our helm, we will prevail.

Often throughout history we find the people of God allying themselves with less-than-moral allies. Sometimes against God's will, and sometimes according to His Will. It is up to the individual believer to consult with God on this "doubtful thing."

Let's take wise council, as used in illustration by Christ Himself and count the enemy's troops:

Camp Obama

• Rev. Jeremiah Wright: racist, anti-American "pastor" to Obama
  
• William Ayers: unrepentant domestic terrorist friend and co-worker
  
• NARAL Pro-choice America: National Abortion Rights Action League
  
  "In a statement released to The Huffington Post, NARAL Pro-Choice America's political director, Elizabeth Shipp, said that the organization was confident with the platforms of Obama and every other front-running Democratic presidential candidate. "
• Michelle Obama, wife of Barak Obama:
  
  Speaking in Milwaukee, Wisconsin today, would-be First Lady Michelle Obama said, "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country..."
• Obama himself
  
  "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.
  
  The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.
  
  The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."

That's a big evil army, and that's only a sampling. How can we defeat this enemy? Our best bet is to ally ourselves with the candidate most capable of defeating him: John McCain. Sometimes we must be willing to ally ourselves with a less-than-ideal comrade in order to defeat a great evil.

Let's look at some historical alliances (this is not an exhaustive list):

Biblical Alliances

• The Israelites and Rahab the prostitute. Did she say she'd quit her prostitution? No.
• God & The Medo-Persian Empire (Is 48:14-15)

Other Alliances

• USA and USSR against Hitler in WW2
• USA and Iraq against al-qaeda (current war)
• Israel/USA and Afghan Mujahideen (Freedom Fighters) against USSR (Afganistan oppressed by USSR in 1980's - Charlie Wilson convinced the Israelis to provide weapons for the Afghani, muslim warriers Source)
• USA and China against North Korean efforts to obtain nuclear weapons (not war yet)
• Police and Confidential Informants (criminals) against the crime lords

But be careful to seek God in making alliances:
Isaiah 30:1 "Woe to the obstinate children," declares the LORD, "to those who carry out plans that are not mine, forming an alliance, but not by my Spirit, heaping sin upon sin;"

In a world filled with enemies, we must be wise to realize which enemies have potential for great harm. Those who discern grave danger ahead in an Obama presidency, must make an alliance with the only candidate who can prevent such an outcome, and that candidate is John McCain. To do otherwise is to shoot ourselves in the foot. Both painful and useless.

Lies Addressed
The following were lies told by our opponents:

our opponents admitted in Round 2 that McCain wants to keep some abortion legal.

Truth: no, here is what we said

To say that John McCain "murders the innocent" is mere rhetoric. The question of whether McCain supports allowing exceptions to the criminalization of abortion with which we would disagree, is another question altogether. (And we note that our opponents have yet to supply any actual evidence of what specific exceptions McCain might allow.) But frankly to say he "murders the innocent", as if he were personally performing abortions, is hyperbole bordering on slander.

We established by over half a dozen lines of evidence that John McCain is pro-choice, but simply not as pro-choice as some people. We proved that he has knowingly funded abortions with taxpayer money. We proved that he believes "abortions should be legal."

Perhaps our opponents should re-read our post #3 where we prove that this is not in the least bit "established" and we do not except as proof, their own rhetoric and votes on bills for which even no-exceptions-anti-abortion senators voted.

Questions Answered:

In 2000 and 2004, he said abortion should be legal for rape and incest. In 2005, he funded abortions for rape and incest. In September, 2008, he reaffirmed that he believes "abortions should be legal" for rape and incest. This is "inconsistent?"

It is inconsistent because 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 approprations bill, so let's proceed to answering properly labeled questions.

I want to note here that these questions are irrelevent in that they do not address the topic question, particularly since we have not come to any agreement upon a single definition of "immoral voting." When we can do that we will be going somewhere.
GGQ16: Does John McCain advocate that some "abortions should be legal?"
NwA-GGQ16: No. Not currently, and this is irrelevant.

GGQ17: Does John McCain advocate that women have a right to "choose" to have an abortion if they were raped or the child resulted from incest?
NWA-GGQ17: No. Not currently, and this is irrelevant.

GGQ18: Do you believe McCain is the kind of man who will refuse to stand up for his principles in this area, who will go against his own views and work to criminalize something he believes should be legal? Or, conversely, do you believe McCain will likely use the authority of his presidential office to keep some abortion legal, including to sign bills into law that fund abortion for such things as rape and incest?
NWA-GGQ17: This question cannot be answered because it assumes the wrong answer to the first two.

Questions Asked
You equivocated upon this question before, so I re-phrase it now:
NWQ12: Which candidates are printed on the ballots of a statistically significant number of states, where "statistically significant" is defined as a number that shows a statistical possibility of being elected President?

In regard to your answer to
NWQ10: What is the benefit of a vote cast for a candidate who cannot win?

GGA-NWQ10: This question ... is illogical because there are no candidates "who cannot win." I can win. Alan Keyes can win. Paris Hilton can win. Any valid candidate can win if enough people vote for that person,

This is avoidance of reality bordering on the psychotic. Please answer the question.

[Knight]

DING DING DING

Round #4 is OVER!!!

THIS IS THE FINAL ROUND!

The team of GodsfreeWill and The Graphite (GG) are now back on the clock and have until 9:58PM (MDT) on October 12th to make their 5th and final post.

Have an opinion about what the team of WandererInFog and nicholsmom (NW) just posted? Feel free to discuss this battle here.

[The Graphite]

[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.

Their reply?

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…

John 19:11
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.)

Scalia at timecodes 3:23-3:53 and 4:26-5:14

Transcript:

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.

They wrote:

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?
NWAGGQ6: Yes.

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?

Esther 3:8-10
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.

Esther 9:24-25
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.

Esther 1:1
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),

Palin 1:1
Now it came to pass in the days of Milhous (this was the Richard Nixon who reigned over fifty states, from Alaska to Florida),

Esther 3:8-9
Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “… If it pleases the king, let a decree be written that [the Jews can] be destroyed...”

Palin 3:8-9
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.”

Esther 8:5
“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.”

Palin 8:5
“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.

Romans 1:29-32
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.

[Knight]

The team of nicholsmom and WandereerInFog (NW) are now back on the clock and have until 10:13PM (MDT) on October 14th to make their 5th and final post.

Have an opinion about what the team of GodsfreeWill and The Graphite (GG) just posted? Feel free to discuss this battle here.

[WandererInFog]

Back On Topic

In their final round our opponents have once again demonstrated their continued confusion as to precisely what this debate is about, if not a deliberate decision to ignore it.

The question placed before is:

Is it immoral to vote for McCain/Palin?

It is not:

Is it wise to for McCain/Palin? Or Is is the best strategy the vote McCain/Palin?

And yet it is those two questions which our opponents have entirely concerned themselves throughout this debate. In our opening, we posited a clear definition, based on Scripture, of when choosing to vote for a candidate was definitively immoral, which we will restate again here: The only instance in which voting could be definitively considered an immoral act is if a vote is cast for someone who God himself would not command us to obey as a legitimate authority.

Our opponents contend that an election is an issue of choosing authority, not of submitting to it. And they are quite correct in this observation. However, in making this argument they have fundamentally misunderstood how this principle is derived from Scripture. It is not an issue that we may vote for anyone who God would command us to obey, it is that we may morally delegate authority to anyone that God himself could morally delegate authority to.

More Righteous Than God?

Their entire argument comes down to an assertion, without Scriptural basis, that to ever give authority to anyone who would allow abortion to be legal under any circumstances would be immoral. And yet, to hold consistently to this position they have failed to realize that they must condemn God Himself as immoral. It was God who, speaking through both the Apostles Peter and Paul, commanded obedience to the Roman government as authorities which He Himself had given power and authority (Rom 13:1, 1 Peter 2:13). The government in question was one which condoned not only abortion, but infanticide as well. And yet God chose to utilize such people as a means to bring the ends He desired.

These commands must have deeply troubled many of those Christians who lived in the first century and saw the gross evil committed by the Roman Empire, and yet two millenia in the future we can see clearly how God utilized these evil men as a means to bring about a good end. He used the roads they built to maintain their military domination over a multitude of nations, including His own chosen people, as the pathways along which His Gospel could quickly reach a vast number of people, and He used the languages their imperialism has forced on those nations to make it readily accessible and easily understood.

This is where any argument regarding the “immorality” of voting for McCain/Palin completely collapses. We either accept what we find in scripture or we attempt to make ourselves “More Righteous than God”.

This does not, in and of itself, mean that we therefore should vote McCain/Palin. It merely establishes it as one potential option among many which we may as Christians vociferously debate, but which we should not divide over.

Argument from Inconsitency

On an intuitive level, our opponents seem to recognize this. They agree that voting McCain/Palin should not place a believer under the discipline of the Church, but they fail to accept that by agreeing to this, they are agreeing that it is not a matter which falls into the category of moral vs. immoral. They attempt to deflect this weakly by making comparisons to someone telling a small lie to their wife and similar silly things which are in no way analogous to the matter at hand. Voting is not simply an “off the cuff” decision one makes upon walking into the voting booth. It is the end result of a deliberate process of thought regarding the candidates (or at the very least it should be). To make the example they've attempted to use in any way remotely similar, we would have to compare it to someone who practices deception, not merely as sudden impulsive decision, but one who has decided that deception is moral and practices it unrepentantly. We would hope that all of us could agree that such a person should be disciplined by their Church, and if they continue being unrepentant, removed for it.

And finally on strategy

And this is where the argument regarding the morality of voting for McCain/Palin ends. However, as our opponents have repeatedly sought to broaden the debate to include whether or not voting for McCain/Palin represents a wise strategy for Christians who wish to see abortion ended, we will now briefly visit that subject as well. We have chosen to each, independently write our portion of this as our reasons for believing this to be so are not precisely identical.

WandererInFog:

My decision to support McCain/Palin is entirely based on how likely we are during the next four years to see, one way or the other, a massive shift in the Supreme Court of the United States. Whoever is the next President of the United States will almost certainly have the opportunity to replace two of the most liberal judges sitting on the court today: John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I am hopeful that McCain will keep his promise in this regard and nominate strict constructionists judges, who would, by virtue of holding to that philosophy, be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade. However, even should the judges he nominate be "moderates" in the vein of John Roberts, we would still see an end to certain dangerous trends on the part of the court, including the rise in court opinions drawing on the laws of foreign nations.

In essence, these next four years will determine the success or failure of the efforts of the past 30 years on the part of Pro-Life conservatives to create a court willing to overturn Roe v. Wade. If Obama is elected and Stevens & Ginsburg are replaced by younger, equally liberal judges then all of these efforts will have ultimately amounted to nothing and we will have lost our last, best opportunity to see Roe v. Wade overturned in our lifetimes. If that happens, then it will be time to abandon this strategy and move onto other means in our fight against abortion. However to abandon this strategy now, when the prospect of success remains viable would be foolhardy. McCain may well fail us in this regard as well, but I believe that, win or lose, we are final stage of this race and it is wisest to see it through to the finish.

nicholsmom:

Next month, I will cast a vote for McCain/Palin. I do this not because I have hope of positive change in our nation, but because I desire to slow our nation's decline into socialism.
I will not sit atop a moral high-horse with eyes tightly closed and declare that the Obama an McCain are the same. I've done the research and I know better. Barack Obama is a socialist who has not only the desire but the backing & cunning to cause great change in our nation - but not for the good. I found an article on the net that gives a clear history lesson on the issue of socialism. I highly recommend that every voter read it.
Others may chose to close their eyes, plug their ears, and chant "la, la, la, I can't hear you!" all they like, but I will not vote in ignorance and denial. I will vote for the best, most viable enemy of freedom's worst enemy: socialism. I will vote for McCain/Palin and pray for God's people to get off of their pews and onto their knees before Almighty God before it really is too late.

Final Remarks

In closing, we would like to thank both the administrators of this board and our opponents for the opportunity to engage in this debate, as well as to thank the audience who has taken the time to follow it. We hope that the end result of all of this discussion is that, regardless of how you choose to vote in November, that your decision has become a more carefully considered one as the result of the discussion that has gone on in this "Battle Royale".

[Knight]

DING DING DING

Battle Royale XIII is OVER!!!

Back to your corners!!!

I want to thank all four opponents for participating in this very entertaining battle.

If you have an opinion about this battle please free to discuss this battle here.