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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nathon Detroit

New member
Presidential Election 2008 - Is it Immoral to Vote for McCain/Palin? Battle Royale XIII
GodsfreeWill and The Graphite vs. WandererinFog and Nicholsmom


This will be the very first ever Battle Royale TAG TEAM battle!

What: The debate is titled: Presidential Election 2008 - Is it Immoral to Vote for McCain/Palin?

Where:
The debate will take place on the Internet at TheologyOnline.com (TOL), the popular online Christian forum, with the moderator, opponents, and spectators all participating and observing over the web.

Who: The debate will be moderated by the site’s webmaster, through his TOL screen name Knight, who can be contacted at knight@TheologyOnline.com. GodsfreeWill and The Graphite vs. WandererinFog and Nicholsmom will be the combatants

When: The debate will begin on Monday, September 29, 2008 at noon (MDT). GodsfreeWill's team will post first since they are arguing for the affirmative. Nicholsmom's team will have 48 hours to post their rebuttal. THERE WILL NOT BE A WEEKEND BREAK FOR THIS BATTLE. Each team has 48 hours from the time of the previous post to make their next post. If for some reason a combatant cannot make their post on time they can make arrangements with me (Knight) and we can make an adjustment as long as it is a reasonable adjustment.

How: The debate will last for five rounds. The recommended maximum word limit for the average post is 6,000 words, but any or all posts could be much briefer or possibly longer if need be. For each round, the opponents will login to TheologyOnline.com to upload their posts. The official BR XII clock is the post time of the last post. (Remember to log in to TOL so that the system will automatically adjust references to your time zone and remember to make sure your time zone is set correctly in your TheologyOnLine USER Control Panel)

Battle schedule....
Post #1 - Round #1 - opening statement (GodsfreeWill Team)
Post #2 - Round #1 - opening statement and rebuttal (Nicholsmom Team)
Post #3 - Round #2 - rebuttal (GodsfreeWill Team)
Post #4 - Round #2 - rebuttal (Nicholsmom Team)
Post #5 - Round #3 - rebuttals (GodsfreeWill Team)
Post #6 - Round #3 - rebuttals (Nicholsmom Team)
Post #7 - Round #4 - rebuttals (GodsfreeWill Team)
Post #8 - Round #4 - rebuttals (Nicholsmom Team)
Post #9 - Round #5 - closing statements (GodsfreeWill Team)
Post #10 - Round #5 - closing statements (Nicholsmom Team)


Guidelines

Clarity: Both sides will attempt to achieve clarity and avoid obfuscation.

Responsiveness:
Each side will make an effort to be responsive to the other, to interact, and to answer relevant questions forthrightly, which also ensures that the participants actually debate one another and not simply post material written for other purposes, especially if that material is not specifically responsive.

Specific BR XII Rules

Rule 1:
Question Numbering: To help focus the opponent on the topic(s) of a particular post, and to enable readers to follow the debate more easily, participants will sequentially number their questions using TOL’s Battle Royale convention of first and last initial, a Q for question, an A for answer, and then the question number. Godsfreewill's team will be identified as GG (Godsfreewill and the Graphite) and Nicholsmom's team will be identified as NW (Nicholsmom and WanderinFog) Therefore questions and answers can be identified as : GGQ1, GGQ2, NWQ1, and would mark any answer given with GGA-NWQ1 (Godsfreewill's team answers Nicholsmoms team first question), NWA-GGQ1, etc. After reading a post of, say, fifteen paragraphs, without such a convention, it may be unclear to the audience and even to the opponent exactly what is being asked. So this also saves participants time in evaluating an opponent’s post. And it discourages unresponsive replies that focus for example on rhetorical questions or incidental details while ignoring the primary challenges. Of course there can be valid reasons why an opponent may refuse to answer a given question.

Please summarize your new questions in each round for your opponent at the bottom of each post.

Rule 2:
Tag Team: This is a tag team battle which means there are two combatants on either side: GodsfreeWill and The Graphite on one side and WandererinFog and Nicholsmom on the other side. Each team may make only ONE post in each round. Therefore there will be 10 total posts in this battle (5 per team).

Only Admins and Battle Royale participants will be able to post in this battle thread.
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
The tale of the tape!

The tale of the tape!

Lets get to know our combatants.

In one corner.... the team of Godsfreewill and The Graphite. This team shall be abbreviated as "GG".

Will Duffy aka (GodsfreeWill) is the General Manager for Christian radio talk show Bob Enyart Live. Duffy founded the Collaborators Project as part of American Right to Life's three-fold strategy to end abortion. The Collaborators Project focuses on demoralizing abortion, to "create unbearable social tension to coerce the government to correct the injustice of shedding innocent blood."

The Graphite lives in Westminster, CO and attends Denver Bible Church, pastored by Bob Enyart. Since coming to the Lord in November 1999, he has spent about 5 years working with a radical street evangelism ministry called GODISNOWHERE based in eastern Colorado, and currently gives time to the pro-life community here. A lifelong registered Republican for two decades, he renouced that party affiliation just two weeks ago. He voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004 and now deeply regrets both votes. The Graphite is a strong proponent of legally recognizing the personhood of the unborn from conception.

And in the other corner... the team of nicholsmom and WanderInFog. This team shall be abbreviated as "NW".

nicholsmom is a 44-year-old married mother of 6 children aged 14 to 3 years. She is a strong advocate of Federalism, and has always voted straight-party Republican ticket. On the issue of abortion, she believes that any human life includes personhood; that abortion is murder every time it is exercised. She is a conservative, Bible-studying Christian dedicated to being a vessel for the work of Christ. She teaches a women's Sunday school class, currently working on hermeneutics.

WandererInFog, born and raised in the southeastern US, Wanderer is a 31 year old, married, father of 2 of two and small business owner. A rather busy and often unpredictable life has prevented Wanderer from ever quite finishing his college education despite having a large number of credits towards a degree in Philosophy. Still Wanderer attempts to take the approach of a lifetime leaner reading, on average, 3-5 books a week on such subjects as Theology, Politics, and Science.

Theologically, Wanderer considers himself best described as paleo-orthodox with a great deal of respect for such writers as Alister McGrath and Thomas Odom.

Politically, Wanderer is a conservative and an Independent who has in the past supported and done volunteer work for the Libertarian and Constitution Parties, but finds himself now largely critical of the effectiveness of 3rd party politics in the United States.
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
Battle Royale's are limited to the participants within the battle. However feel free to discuss and debate this battle yourself in our battle discussion thread located here.
 

GodsfreeWill

New member
Gold Subscriber
What if he were willing to kill some Jews or some blacks?

What if he were willing to kill some Jews or some blacks?

BATTLE ROYALE XIII: Round 1
The Commander [In Chief] of the Army of the Lord


Do You Really Believe Abortion is Murder? Are You Sure?

It's no secret that John McCain is pro-choice. It was no surprise when he was endorsed by the organization Republicans for Choice. John McCain's official position is pro-choice with exceptions. McCain believes it is okay for a mother to kill her unborn child if his/her father is a criminal (rape/incest). McCain believes it is okay to dismember an unborn child if the mother's life is threatened, rather than removing the living baby to attempt to save the mother and her baby (life of the mother). McCain believes it is okay to do grisly medical research on the tiniest living boys and girls through embryonic stem cell research (Dr. Mengele-type research).

In other words, basically, McCain is willing to kill some kids.

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? We assume your answer is "No," but that leaves us with quite the dilemma. We only see two choices here, and we challenge our opponents to correct us if we're wrong.

Option 1: Our opponents would not vote for McCain if he were willing to kill some Jews or some blacks.
Conclusion: Our opponents do not really believe abortion is murder, as demonstrated by their inconsistency.​

Option 2: Our opponents would vote for McCain if he were willing to kill some Jews or some blacks.
Conclusion: Our opponents do believe abortion is murder and have no problem supporting a man willing to slaughter innocent children, innocent Jews and innocent blacks.​


ROUND 1 QUESTIONS:

GG1: If you were about to do something that God did not want you to do, would you want to know?

GG2: Would you still support McCain if he were willing to kill some Jews or some blacks?

GG3: 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?

(Please note, throughout this debate, we may ask many yes-or-no questions. We expect to receive yes-or-no answers, or at least “both, neither, sometimes one and sometimes the other,” or at minimum, “I don’t know.” But without one of these direct answers, all the explanation in the world will not persuade us that the question has been answered. Please answer appropriately as a yes-or-no to make your position clear. We fully intend to do the same, in return.)

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. In this debate, we will show you biblically that it is immoral for an informed Christian to support or even vote for John McCain and his vice-presidential running mate, Sarah Palin. (Of course we are talking about the Christians aware of the facts and not just an uninformed and naïve vote for McCain simply because he's a Republican.)

If you're a Christian and planning on voting for John McCain, as our opponents are, please consider two questions:

If you were going to do something that God did not want you to do, would you want to know?​
and…

What would Jesus do?​


Position Statement


Our position is that it is immoral to vote for the John McCain/Sarah Palin ticket in the 2008 presidential election. The following is the basic explanation of our line of reasoning.

A voter has no moral obligation to vote for one of two evil choices. Of course no Scripture implies that he has such an obligation.

We should not do evil so that good may come of it.
Romans 3:8
And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.​


If God's law conflicts with man's law, then we must obey God rather than men.

Acts 5:27-29
And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!" But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men.”​


We should not fear men; we should fear only God.
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.​

McCain has a long-time, consistent pro-choice record and promises to use his authority to continue to promote and support abortion.

Our government has delegated authority to each registered voter without telling them whom to vote for. It is any Christian's moral obligation to use the authority given to them only within the boundaries of righteousness and to act in accordance with God's will, even if it isn't in our earthly, personal interest -- that is, to "do right and risk the consequences."

We question whether those advocating voting for McCain actually believe abortion is murder.

We hold that refusing to vote for Obama or McCain does not equate to helping Obama or McCain's campaign. Rather, it simply has no effect on either campaign. The belief that a Republican not voting for McCain is helping Obama is an example of moral relativism and therefore directly contradicts the absolute truth of God's word and the absolute moral law of God.

Therefore, it is not immoral to withhold a vote for McCain. In fact, it is immoral to vote for either Obama or for the McCain/Palin ticket in the Nov. 11th election.

Our Nation’s Leaders Are Killing Innocent People

Grave injustices and crimes against humanity have plagued human history. Saul of Tarsus killed Christians; Hitler killed Jews; whites lynched blacks, just to name a few. To make matters worse, these grave injustices were all legal under the law of the land. A terrible injustice plagues the world and our own nation, today. It is a holocaust greater than that of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, combined. They call it abortion. The Bible is clear on the humanity of the unborn.

Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;"​

Luke 1:44
For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.​

Judges 13:7
And He said to me, 'Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. Now drink no wine or similar drink, nor eat anything unclean, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.' "​

Job 10:18
'Why then have You brought me out of the womb?
Oh, that I had perished and no eye had seen me!​

Luke 1:15
For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.​

Psalm 22:10
I was cast upon You from birth.
From My mother's womb You have been My God.​

Isaiah 49:1
"Listen, O coastlands, to Me,
And take heed, you peoples from afar!
The Lord has called Me from the womb;
From the matrix of My mother He has made mention of My name.​

Genesis 25:21-22
Now Isaac pleaded with the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord granted his plea, and Rebekah his wife conceived. But the children struggled together within her;​

Exodus 21:22
"If men fight, and hurt a woman with child…​

We could use up our entire allotted word count with the biblical material dealing with the humanity and personhood of the unborn. God knew us before He formed us in the womb. Conception and the embryo's trip down the fallopian tube to the uterus (the womb) is all that takes place before our formation in the womb. God knew us from the moment of our creation, the moment of fertilization. Even John McCain says not only does life begin at conception, but that such a “baby” is entitled to human rights from conception. This will become of great importance later in the debate.


It's the devil's game to give you two evil choices and act like he's the good guy by letting you “choose” between two wrong choices. When given choices A and B by the devil, what would Jesus do?

The answer is "C."

Joshua 5:13-14
Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, "Are you for us or for our enemies?"

"Neither," he replied, "but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come." Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, "What message does my Lord have for his servant?"​

And in the New Testament:

John 9:2-3
And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
Jesus answered, "Neither…"​

Christ is too wise to fall into such an obvious trap. Given two choices, both wrong, He answers: neither.
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
The team of nicholsmom and WandereerInFog (NW) are now on the clock and have until noon (MDT) on October 1st to make their 1st round post. Keep in mind they need not wait that long and can post whenever they are ready, but they have 48 hours from the time of the previous post to make their post.

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

WandererInFog

New member
We'd like to start off by thanking Knight for allowing us the opportunity to enter into this debate and those members of TOL who are taking the time to follow the subject being discussed. The specific question being addressed in this debate is a timely one, and the general principles lying behind it have important and far-reaching consequences for Christians living under democratically-elected governments.

Before delving full-on into the topic under discussion, it's important to take a moment to step back and make note of what is not being argued here. While we are arguing that voting for McCain/Palin is not immoral, we are not arguing that doing so is a moral imperative. While we defend the position that a Christian voting for McCain/Palin is moral, we are not saying that Christians who choose to vote for other candidate, or even those who abstain from voting altogether, are doing anything immoral.

Towards a Theology of Voting

The subject of what represents a moral or immoral choice in regards to voting is an important one, and one that's underdeveloped in Christian Theology. As Christians have, in large part, only had to deal with voting for a few centuries, this isn't terribly surprising but really is something that should be remedied. To explore this subject we'll begin by examining what voting represents as an action and then examining what the scriptures say in regards to that action.

So then, what does it mean to vote for a candidate? At it's core, 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 their support to a given candidate.

This means then that we must consider what reasons might lend one to provide support to a given candidate or another. While the reasons are many, they all fall under essentially three categories: the moral character of the candidate, the stated positions of the candidate, and the practical consequences of placing a vote for the candidate.

We place moral character first, because each of the other categories can only be evaluated once basic moral character is established. This does not mean we are to only vote for a candidate who has always been perfectly moral, because then we'd never be able to vote at all. However, unless a candidate is, at a basic level, trustworthy, then it becomes exceedingly hard to vote for him as we can depend on nothing they say regarding their positions, and make few realistic predictions regarding what will be the actual consequences of voting for him.

Next, we evaluate their positions. In this regard we seek a candidate whose positions most closely conform to our views regarding what laws should be enacted and government actions taken.

Finally, we must weigh the practical consequences of voting for a particular candidate. This is where things become most difficult and we must sometimes make tough decisions such as choosing between a candidate who most perfectly reflects our values, but has little chance of achieving victory, and one who more imperfectly reflects our values, but has garnered a broader coalition of support and has a great chance of victory in the election.

So where in all of this are we making a decision and taking an action that must be regarded as either moral or immoral?
This is not a simple question to answer, because the Scriptures never directly address the act of voting, and as such we must be extremely careful with any proclamations we make.

We are warned quite explicitly by Paul not to make our own opinions into rules with which to judge our fellow believers. (Romans 14:1-3 and Romans 14:4) So, as we venture into this subject we must be careful that we limit ourselves to only those things which are found in Scripture through careful exegesis, and not force our own opinions, however well intentioned, onto the Scriptures.

After careful thought and consideration we have come to the opinion that 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. God himself is fairly broad in this regard. He commands us to view as legitimate, and often chooses to work through and commands us to obey, magistrates who are imperfect individuals, and who do not follow his commands at every point. Where he give us not only the right, but the imperative to rebel against a magistrate is where that magistrate would force us to engage in actions in violation of God's commands. Notice it is not enough that a magistrate merely allows things to go on which are contrary to God's will, he must actively be forcing others to commit such actions before rebellion is sanctioned or required. Therefore, to knowingly vote for someone who would attempt to force citizens to engage in immoral acts, would be immoral.

After careful consideration, we can see no evidence based on character, stated beliefs, or past actions to believe than either John McCain or Sarah Palin would enact any law or take any governmental action which would force Christians to commit acts contrary to God's law. This then places the action of voting for McCain and Palin into the category discussed by Paul previously in which each Christian is accountable to his own conscience for his actions. With this in view, there exists no scriptural warrant for judging another believer's voting to be an immoral act.

Now none of this is to say there might not be very specific reasons why we, as Christians, would prefer to see one candidate elected over another or view a vote for one candidate as wiser than the vote for another, but that isn't the question being addressed in this debate.

In response to our opponents:

Positions upon which we agree:
1)We should not do evil so that good may come of it. We concur absolutely with this statement.

2)If God's law conflicts with man's law, then we must obey God rather than men. We would add, as we stated in our opening statements, that we are obligated to rebel against any inducement to violate God's law.

3)We should not fear men; we should fear only God. We agree.

4)Our government has delegated authority to each registered voter without telling them whom to vote for. It is any Christian's moral obligation to use the authority given to them only within the boundaries of righteousness and to act in accordance with God's will, even if it isn't in our earthly, personal interest -- that is, to "do right and risk the consequences." Agreed.

Positions upon which we disagree:
1)McCain has a long-time, consistent pro-choice record and promises to use his authority to continue to promote and support abortion.
You have yet to prove that John McCain is pro-abortion. We will not be accepting "common knowledge" arguments as evidence in this debate. Even according to the article you cited "(McCain) is (pro-life), but it's not at the top of his agenda,"

2)We question whether those advocating voting for McCain actually believe abortion is murder.
Question no further: abortion is murder every time. We completely agree on the question of abortion being immoral. This, however, is not the question to be answered in this battle. Please see the opening statements.

3)We hold that refusing to vote for Obama or McCain does not equate to helping Obama or McCain's campaign. Rather, it simply has no effect on either campaign. The belief that a Republican not voting for McCain is helping Obama is an example of moral relativism and therefore directly contradicts the absolute truth of God's word and the absolute moral law of God.
This argument is beyond the scope of this limited battle. So will not be further addressed

4)It is not immoral to withhold a vote for McCain. As seen in our opening statement, this is beyond the scope of this battle.

General thoughts pertaining to our opponents argument:

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. The proper question here, in light of our becoming like Christ, is "What would Jesus have us do?"

This is the essence of our position: Would God put us under John McCain's leadership? If the answer is "yes," then we must see that it is not immoral to cast a vote in his favor.

Questions answered:
GG1: Yes

GG2: 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. I would also add that this is an unnecessary argument in the face of our agreement upon abortion - it is always murder.

GG3: This question does not pertain to this battle & will not therefore be answered. No candidate in this election is personally going around killing children and as such the hypothetical is irrelevant. If you wish to rephrase it in a manner that actually reflects the question at hand we'd be happy to address it.

Questions for GG:
NW1: Has God ever put His people under a leader who was less than perfectly moral?

NW2: Under what circumstances are God's people instructed to rebel against an immoral leader? Please be specific & use Scripture references.
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
DING DING DING

Round #1 is OVER!!!

The team of GodsfreeWill and The Graphite (GG) are now back on the clock and have until 4:03PM (MDT) on October 1st to make their 2nd round post. Keep in mind they need not wait that long and can post whenever they are ready, but they have 48 hours from the time of the previous post to make their post.

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

The Graphite

New member
BATTLE ROYALE XIII: Round 2a

The Conspiracy That Surrounds Us

We’d first like to point out that our opponents are already allowing their humanistic foundations to show in their arguments. They discussed the standards by which they evaluate candidates during an election – moral character, the candidate’s stated positions and record, and finally the practical consequences of electing that candidate. But they let this slip in their explanation of standard #2:



This is false. We are not our own standard of right and wrong, and our aim should not be to choose a candidate whose positions most closely conform to our own views. This is humanism and relative morality. If a person is a racist, should that racist choose a candidate that most closely conforms to his own views? No, the right thing to do for a racist is to support a candidate that is not racist, because racism is evil and denies that we are all one race – human – and denies that we are all made in God's image.

What a voter should do, in choosing a candidate to approve for office, is to pick someone who advocates God's standard of absolute right and wrong. Although Team NW doesn’t realize this idea has tainted their reasoning, their words have exposed that, deep down, they believe we are our own standard for right and wrong in the voting booth, and we expected this. But, Christ is the only standard of righteousness. It may sound like we are mincing words. But in my childhood (the Graphite here), my father taught me that "Words mean things" (usually uttered in respect to nonsense from liberals), and such things can give away underlying and fundamental differences in people and what they believe. So, we posit that this is not a minor thing, but quite a major thing. What is our standard? Our own conscience? No, that is a created thing, given to us by God, but He is our standard.

Continuing, Team NW said:

Finally, we must weigh the practical consequences of voting for a particular candidate. This is where things become most difficult and we must sometimes make tough decisions such as choosing between a candidate who most perfectly reflects our values, but has little chance of achieving victory, and one who more imperfectly reflects our values, but has garnered a broader coalition of support and has a great chance of victory in the election.

Our opponents are correct that this issue is the hardest of the three they listed, and at the very heart of this debate — the practical consequences of one's moral choices. If this were an issue of choosing between candidates who are more or less experienced, more or less competent, or who disagree on things like political strategy and other amoral or secondary issues, we would certainly agree with our opponents. However, this election and this debate concern whether a certain candidate is evil and whether it is moral or immoral to approve of one who is evil. We are not talking about someone who simply “imperfectly reflects our values.” John McCain does not “imperfectly reflect our values.” He almost perfectly reflects the opposite of our values – he murders the innocent, supports homosexual marriage, promotes socialist legislation that redistributes wealth unjustly, has acted to obstruct freedom of speech, and worst of all, as a leader who promotes all of these things, he thus is leading others to believe and support these things. This is his legacy. Here is a man who will leave the world (particularly our nation) far worse off than it was when he entered it.

We would like to add that we are somewhat disturbed by our opponents’ habit of referring to some of the most evil of historical rulers – mass-murderers, rapists, enslavers, etc. – as men who “imperfectly reflect our values,” who are “imperfect individuals,” men “who do not follow his commands at every point,” or who are “less than perfectly moral.” Once again, words mean things, and this is a reflection of a point of view or way of thinking that is tainted by moral relativism. We will address this much more extensively, later.

NWQ1: Has God ever put His people under a leader who was less than perfectly moral?

GGA-NWQ1: Yes, of course. And He has given them prophets who turned out to be rebellious, and apostles who have sinned. But that doesn't mean that the New Testament qualifications of church leaders should be set aside. Neither does that mean a businessman should hire an otherwise great worker who promises to steal from the cash register; nor a church install an otherwise successful pastor who admits to an ongoing affair.

NWQ2: Under what circumstances are God's people instructed to rebel against an immoral leader? Please be specific & use Scripture references.

GGA –NWQ2: This is outside the scope of this debate. McCain is not our leader. But we will answer. Peter says that whenever the two conflict, we must obey God rather than man (Acts 5:27-29); the Hebrew midwives lied to and disobeyed Pharaoh who commanded them to kill kids at childbirth (Ex. 1:8-9; 15-21); Rahab lied to Jericho's king (Josh. 2:1-7) to save God's men from arrest and worse; David's wife Michal deceived her father King Saul to protect her husband from unjust treatment (1 Sam. 19:10-18); Daniel openly disobeyed King Darius (Dan. 6:10) even though he could have prayed to God silently; John disobeyed the governing authorities by continuing to preach (Acts 4:19); Paul disobeyed the Philippian magistrates (Acts 16:35-40) and yet wrote that as a general rule, we should obey the government (Rom. 13:1). God even punished Israel (2 Kings 17:20) for keeping their own manmade laws: "Judah did not keep the commandments of the LORD their God, but walked in the statutes of Israel which they made" (2 Kings 17:19); some believers made it into the Book of Hebrews Hall of Faith by disobeying the governing authorities including Moses parents (Heb. 11:23); Moses (Heb. 11:27, 29); Rahab (Heb. 11:31); others tortured (Heb. 11:35); others imprisoned (Heb. 11:36). And God even required the Israelites to disobey God's own symbolic ordinances, for example, when necessary to save lives (Mark 2:25-27; Ex. 29:32-33; Lev. 24:5-9; 1 Sam. 21:1-6).

Team NW refers to Paul without quoting him, so many readers may not have actually checked out what Paul said here.

Romans 14:1-4
1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.​

Is Team NW saying that the question of funding the murder of babies is a “doubtful thing?” Our opponents ignore the context of this passage, which was about members of the early Christian church disputing over whether it was acceptable to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Paul rightly pointed out that if someone abstains from eating that meat, this is not an immoral thing. We agree we should not despise Christian brethren who disagree with us on amoral and/or secondary issues. But, we aren’t here to discuss “doubtful things,” but rather issues of murder and conspiracy to murder, and there is no doubt about the moral and sinful nature of such things.

We trust that Team NW would agree that in such serious matters as murder and conspiracy to murder, Romans 14:1-4 does not apply, but rather we should turn to Paul elsewhere:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.​

GGQ4: Does Team NW think that Paul’s passage about “disputing over doubtful things” regarding what kind of food to eat actually equates to the Nov. 11 election and our consideration of whether to approve one accused of having a pro-abortion record for the job of president of the United States?

Team NW is also confusing two issues, here. On the one hand, we wholeheartedly agree that if a government official is in place in a government, they should be obeyed except insofar as they command one to commit a sin. But that is not the issue at hand, here.

McCain is not yet president. He has applied for the job of president, and we have been delegated the authority to decide whether he should be or not, whether we should give him our approval to represent us and to lead us. If he is elected, then at that point we would recognize his authority under God's overarching divine ordination of human government, with the limits upon which both teams agree in this debate. So, Team NW's point is valid only after January 20th of next year, not on or before November 11th.

At issue here is not at all whether we should rebel against his authority, but how we should exercise OUR authority. We have the authority in this situation. We have authority over John McCain, to approve him for this job, or to withhold approval. We are the human resources department’s hiring committee for the job of president of the United States.

One could pose the question, “Whom FDR sided with in WWII and why? Why didn't he fight Germany and the Soviet Union, two evils?” However, Roosevelt did not have authority over the Soviet Union; he did not have the authority to appoint them to a position of authority. Rather, they independently opposed the Third Reich, and Roosevelt coordinated military actions with them for our greater strategic effectiveness.

On the other hand, we do have authority over John McCain in this situation.

To bring further clarity on the issue of culpability in sin, we pose the following three cases:

Robbery Case #1

I am in my car at a red light, and a man comes up to my window and says: "Hi. Could you please give me a ride to the bank? I have some banking to do and my car just broke down."

I say, "Sure. Hop in…" and take him to the bank. As I am leaving, to my horror I see him pull a mask over his face, draw a gun from his pocket, and enter the bank.

Gunshots and screams fill the air, and the man I drove to the bank comes running out --- after he murdered the banker, and stole all the money he could carry. He flees successfully.

GGQ4: Did I sin by giving this murderer and robber a ride to the bank?

Robbery Case #2

I am at a traffic light, and a man comes up to my window and says, "Excuse me; I'm going rob the bank, then shoot the teller so that he won't be able to testify against me at trial if I get caught. Would you please give me a ride to the bank?"

I say, "Sure, hop in…" and give him a ride to the bank, and he fulfills his promise.

GGQ5: Given those facts, have I participated in the sin of theft and murder?

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?

Jesus used parables to illustrate moral principles. In this debate, we will use hypothetical situations and real historical situations to illustrate moral principles. Our opponents have obviously obfuscated in our first of such hypothetical situations, claiming that it is irrelevant to the debate. We will let you, the audience, decide what is irrelevant and what is not. We are not afraid to answer any questions given to us by our opponents, even if we feel they are irrelevant to the debate and promise to do as such. We would like to restate this hypothetical situation again and ask our opponents to give us all an answer.

A School Full of Kids

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.

GGQ7: Which one are you going to support, knowing that eventually one will succeed in getting in? To whom do you give your key?

WandererInFog and nicholsmom – “Abortion - it is always murder”

Our opponents are correct that abortion is murder and we’re very happy to say we are in agreement here. Now that we’ve established common ground, we would like to ask our opponents some questions about the baby pictured below:

7 week old unborn baby

GGQ8: Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to kill this innocent child?
GGQ9: Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to fund the killing of this innocent child?
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?
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
The team of nicholsmom and WandereerInFog (NW) are now back on the clock and have until 4:03PM (MDT) on October 3rd to make their 2nd round post. Keep in mind they need not wait that long and can post whenever they are ready, but they have 48 hours from the time of the previous post to make their post.

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

nicholsmom

New member
Addressing Objections

(opponent's quotes in red, ours in purple)
We’d first like to point out that our opponents are already allowing their humanistic foundations to show in their arguments.
...We are not our own standard of right and wrong, and our aim should not be to choose a candidate whose positions most closely conform to our own views. This is humanism and relative morality. If a person is a racist, should that racist choose a candidate that most closely conforms to his own views? No, the right thing to do for a racist is to support a candidate that is not racist, because racism is evil and denies that we are all one race – human – and denies that we are all made in God's image.

We made an assumption that we did not state: As everyone involved in this discussion is a conservative Christian, when speaking of "morality" and "immorality" that we are really speaking of the Christian view of these; and when we speak of "our" opinion that those opinions are based on our best effort's to ascertain God's will through the exegesis of His Holy Scripture. We apologize for the confusion.

their words have exposed that, deep down, they believe we are our own standard for right and wrong in the voting booth, and we expected this.
Our words have rather exposed that even on the surface, and all the way through, we believe that (from our first post)
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.
We base this belief in Scripture: (also from our first post)
the Scriptures never directly address the act of voting, and as such we must be extremely careful with any proclamations we make.

We are warned quite explicitly by Paul not to make our own opinions into rules with which to judge our fellow believers. (Romans 14:1-3 and Romans 14:4) So, as we venture into this subject we must be careful that we limit ourselves to only those things which are found in Scripture through careful exegesis, and not force our own opinions, however well intentioned, onto the Scriptures.
Our opponents later attempt refute the application of these verses:
Team NW refers to Paul without quoting him,
This site possesses a feature whereby scrolling over any verse reference, the verse appears in a pop-up. Therefore, unless we are attempting to engage in particularly detailed exegesis of a given verse, we will simply provide a reference.

However as this particular verse has been singled out, we will quote in it's entirety:

Romans 14:1-4
1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.​

Of “Doubtful Things” and Selective Morality

Is Team NW saying that the question of funding the murder of babies is a “doubtful thing?”
This should have been among GG's labeled questions, but we'll answer nonetheless: no. The question being asked in this debate (and I honestly don't know how our opponents keep forgetting it) is the morality of voting for McCain/Palin.
It is the morality of voting that is a "doubtful thing"
Our opponents ignore the context of this passage, which was about members of the early Christian church disputing over whether it was acceptable to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Paul rightly pointed out that if someone abstains from eating that meat, this is not an immoral thing. We agree we should not despise Christian brethren who disagree with us on amoral and/or secondary issues. But, we aren’t here to discuss “doubtful things,” but rather issues of murder and conspiracy to murder, and there is no doubt about the moral and sinful nature of such things.
While the question regarding the eating of meat sacrificed to idols is the specific example used by Paul, the fourth verse obviously goes beyond this specific example. The Greek word here translated as "servant" is οἰκέτης and refers to menial household servants or slaves. What Paul is reminding us here is that we are God's property and God's alone. When go beyond God's will revealed in Scripture and declare or create additional laws for our fellow believers, we are stepping out of our place and attempting to usurp the authority of God himself.

The question of this debate is not abortion, if it were, we'd not have entered into it. We all agree that abortion is no "doubtful thing," nor is the funding of abortion. What is debated here is whether or not a Christian commits an immoral act by voting for candidate who does not follow God's law on every point. Because, let us be frank here, if one is to say, as a matter of principle, that a candidate's less-than-perfect stance on abortion makes it immoral to vote for him, then one would also have to say that it is immoral to cast a vote for a candidate having a less-than-perfect stance on any other issue which is addressed in Holy Scripture, or else enter into the rankest sort of hypocrisy. Just as violation of even one part of God's law makes us guilty of violating the entirety of it, it follows that condemnation of a vote cast for a candidate willing to allow one type immorality, requires equal condemnation for casting a vote for any candidate who would allow any kind of immorality.

On Character & John McCain

They continue:
We are not talking about someone who simply “imperfectly reflects our values.” John McCain does not “imperfectly reflect our values.” He almost perfectly reflects the opposite of our values – he murders the innocent, supports homosexual marriage, promotes socialist legislation that redistributes wealth unjustly, has acted to obstruct freedom of speech, and worst of all, as a leader who promotes all of these things, he thus is leading others to believe and support these things

Let's take just a couple of these points:

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.

Supports homosexual marriage? Not according the official stance he gives:
The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.​

So unless you have some example of McCain engaging in actions that undermine this statement, we will have to assume that this is at best a gross exaggeration and at worst an outright fallacy.

McCain is not yet president. He has applied for the job of president, and we have been delegated the authority to decide whether he should be or not, whether we should give him our approval to represent us and to lead us. If he is elected, then at that point we would recognize his authority under God's overarching divine ordination of human government, with the limits upon which both teams agree in this debate. So, Team NW's point is valid only after January 20th of next year, not on or before November 11th.

At issue here is not at all whether we should rebel against his authority, but how we should exercise OUR authority. We have the authority in this situation. We have authority over John McCain, to approve him for this job, or to withhold approval. We are the human resources department’s hiring committee for the job of president of the United States.

It would be immoral to cast a vote for a man against whom we intend to rebel. So the question is on point: what sort of man does God give us the authority against whom to rebel? That is the sort of man for whom it would be immoral to cast a vote. That is the only question being answered by the narrow scope of this battle. Is it immoral to cast a vote for McCain/Palin?

Towards a Theology of Voting
- Category 1: Moral Character


In our opening statements we said:
.. we must consider what reasons might lend one to provide support to a given candidate or another. While the reasons are many, they all fall under essentially three categories: the moral character of the candidate, the stated positions of the candidate, and the practical consequences of placing a vote for the candidate.

We place moral character first, because each of the other categories can only be evaluated once basic moral character is established. This does not mean we are to only vote for a candidate who has always been perfectly moral, because then we'd never be able to vote at all. However, unless a candidate is, at a basic level, trustworthy, then it becomes exceedingly hard to vote for him as we can depend on nothing they say regarding their positions, and make few realistic predictions regarding what will be the actual consequences of voting for him.

Since moral character must be evaluated first, let's begin there. Is John McCain, at a basic level, trustworthy? Can we say that he he has moral character? Remember that we are not looking for perfection here, nor are we looking for the candidate with "the best" moral character. This is a pass/fail test only so that we can decide whether or not to continue with evaluation of stated positions & practical consequences.

Let's look at the the main accusation leveled at McCain (paraphrased);
John McCain and his supporters claim that he has a 24-year record of "pro-life voting", yet he has voted for some exceptions whereby abortion can be deemed legal.

Is this a lie told & re-told by John McCain & his supporters? Or is it rather a difference in definition of what constitutes "pro-life voting?"

Certainly the pro-choice camp calls McCain pro-life. According to congresspedia, NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Senator McCain a grade of 0 as recently as 2007.

Even the National Right to Life considers him to be pro-life, stating, "Senator John McCain has consistently taken a strong pro-life position against abortion, has a strong pro-life voting record against abortion and opposes Roe v. Wade." (Source)

It is disingenuous to say that McCain is lying just because he fails to meet your standard for "pro-life voting record." It is like saying it's a lie to say that the sky is blue when we all know that it is really cerulean, or to claim that the field is flooded when in fact there's just a 1 acre puddle in the NW corner of a 2 acre field. It is a matter of definition, and John McCain's definition matches up with that of the most prevalent pro-life organization in our nation. Those of us who go beyond this stance will often refer to ourselves as being "pro-life without exceptions," realizing that the commonly-understood meaning of the term is broader than ours.
This claim to a "pro-life voting record" cannot legitimately be called a lie.

So we come back to the main question: Is John McCain, at a basic level, trustworthy? Since we cannot know the man personally, we are left with trusting the opinions of others - hopefully looking to those who have proved themselves trustworthy:
Here is what a few of them have said about McCain:
People who know him:
Retired Air Force Col. Tom Moe and former Marine Lt. Col. Orson Swindle shared experiences as prisoners of war during the Vietnam War. They recalled that McCain was offered an early release because his father was an admiral but rejected it.

"There were about 200 people who had been captured before him and he said he'd be coming home No. 201, whenever that day came," said Moe. He and Swindle said their captors tortured McCain and tried to force him to accept release, but he knew that would be a propaganda victory for the North Vietnamese and a blow to morale of other POWs.

"No matter how beaten up he was, he'd look over at me with this big smile and give me a thumbs up," said Moe. "That was our way of saying, 'We're going to make it.' This is character."

Swindle said McCain "had a good possibility of dying" from broken bones and bayonet wounds suffered when he was captured.

"He weighed life and honor and chose honor," said Swindle. "There's not one other political figure in that position who would do that."
(Source)

"Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be President.
But it does reveal character.
This is the kind of character that civilizations from the beginning of history have sought in their leaders.
Strength.
Courage.
Humility.
Wisdom.
Duty.
Honor.
It's pretty clear there are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, "Who is this man?" and "Can we trust this man with the Presidency?"
-Fred Dalton Thompson in his speech to the RNC

People who have worked alongside him:
It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.

With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost - there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.

But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.

They overlooked the caliber of the man himself - the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Senator John McCain. The voters knew better.

And maybe that's because they realize there is a time for politics and a time for leadership ... a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.

Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by.

He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.

And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way.

...
We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man.
-Governor Sarah Palin in her speech to the RNC


In elections, there are no perfect candidates. In this election, however, there is a man of whom we can be proud. John McCain understands that long before he can win your vote, he must win your trust. Sen. McCain has earned the trust of the American people, and I am doing all I can to see that he also earns their vote.
Sen. John Brownback (R-Kansas) (source)

"John McCain alone has the experience, character and credibility to lead as commander in chief on day one and defeat the transcendent threat of our time -- radical Islamic extremism. I am proud to support John McCain for president,"
-John Bauer (Source)


There are plenty of others out there who also know John McCain and have found him to be trustworthy. So John McCain passes the basic moral character test, meaning that he is sufficiently honest that we may generally trust his stated positions on given issues to reflect how he will actually govern.

Answering Questions & Questioning Answers

Dividing the first into two, since it is two separate questions:
GGQ4a: Does Team NW think that Paul’s passage about “disputing over doubtful things” regarding what kind of food to eat actually equates to the Nov. 11 election?
NWA-GGQ4a: Yes, it applies (doesn't perhaps "equate" but I think Graphite meant "apply") to elections. The passage uses the example of clean and unclean foods to illustrate the scope of Grace because it was a specific question. That Paul expands that lesson is obvious in verse 4, and continues to expand on the principle throughout the 14th chapter of Romans. So yes, we believe that voting is among those "doubtful things." We must also clarify what is meant here by “doubtful things” by the passage in Romans.


GGQ4b: Does Team NW think that Paul’s passage about “disputing over doubtful things” [applies to] our consideration of whether to approve one accused of having a pro-abortion record for the job of president of the United States?
NWA-GGQ4: Yes, because accusation is not even close to conviction.

For some reason, the next question was also numbered GGQ4, so I'll call it GGQ4c
GGQ4c: Did I sin by giving this murderer and robber a ride to the bank?
NWA-GGQ4c: No. If you had power to stop the murder/robbery, and failed to do so, then you'd be somewhat culpable, but not for providing the ride. Rather, letting fear immobilize you prevented your doing good. I don't think that is sin, however.

GGQ5: Given those facts, have I participated in the sin of theft and murder?
NWA-GGQ5: Yes.

GGQ6: Given these facts, have I participated in the sin of robbery and murder?
NWA-GGQ6: Yes.
I'll be very interested to see how you manage to tie these to McCain - we will require up-to-date evidence that is reliable.

GGQ7: Which one are you going to support, knowing that eventually one will succeed in getting in? To whom do you give your key?
NWA-GGQ7: Neither. But again, the analogy has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

GGQ8: Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to kill this innocent child?
NWA-GGQ8: 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.
GGQ9: Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to fund the killing of this innocent child?
NWA-GGQ9: Yes. Have you read John McCain's stance upon the issue of abortion? He agrees with us.
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?
NWA-GGQ10: 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.


And A Few Questions More

Concerning your response:
GGA-NWQ1: Yes, of course. And He has given them prophets who turned out to be rebellious, and apostles who have sinned. But that doesn't mean that the New Testament qualifications of church leaders should be set aside. Neither does that mean a businessman should hire an otherwise great worker who promises to steal from the cash register; nor a church install an otherwise successful pastor who admits to an ongoing affair.

NWQ3: Are you saying that we should elect government leaders by the standards set out for Christian church leaders?

Concerning your response:
GGA –NWQ2: This is outside the scope of this debate. McCain is not our leader. But we will answer. Peter says that whenever the two conflict, we must obey God rather than man (Acts 5:27-29)

It fits our criteria for determining moral acts concerning voting, so within the scope. You are quite right that the only times that we are to rebel are when making a choice between obeying God & obeying man.

NWQ4: How would the election of John McCain, personally, cause you to make that choice? I will want evidence on the likelihood of this as well, rather than foundationless accusations.


Finally, as we've answered all of your hypotheticals this, we're going to indulge in one of our own:

A man owns a factory in WWII Germany. He has personally seen a concentration camp and fully understands what is taking place in terms of the murder of Jews. As the owner of this factory, he is able to requisition the labor of Jews who are currently in those camps, moving them into his personal care, where he can prevent their mistreatment and eventual death. Now, obviously, in doing this he will only save a small fraction of those being killed, and in order to do this he must not speak out directly against the Nazi regime as to do so would result in his immediate imprisonment and death and the return of all those under his care to the concentration camps.

NWQ5:If he chooses to remain silent and only save those who is able to, is he committing an immoral act?
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
DING DING DING

Round #2 is OVER!!!

The team of GodsfreeWill and The Graphite (GG) are now back on the clock and have until 3:47PM (MDT) on October 5th to make their 3rd round post.

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

GodsfreeWill

New member
Gold Subscriber
The Case Against McCain

The Case Against McCain

BATTLE ROYALE XIII: Round 3a
Is John McCain guilty of murder?​

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ewmpSIuBkrk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ewmpSIuBkrk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​

Our opponents and you, the audience, have been wondering when we will deal directly with the morality of voting for McCain/Palin. Wonder no longer; the time is here. Strategy is often used in debates and especially in this one. Our questions, our hypothetical situations, have been part of a strategy to show you that it is indeed immoral to vote for McCain in the upcoming presidential election and to also show that our opponents agree with us. They stated that…

… it would be immoral to cast a vote for a man against whom we intend to rebel.

Based on this, we believe in this round we have won the debate.

Our opponents stated,

Because, let us be frank here, if one is to say, as a matter of principle, that a candidate's less-than-perfect stance on abortion makes it immoral to vote for him, then one would also have to say that it is immoral to cast a vote for a candidate having a less-than-perfect stance on any other issue which is addressed in Holy Scripture, or else enter into the rankest sort of hypocrisy.

In saying that one type of immorality requires “equal condemnation” as any other kind of immorality, our opponents are suggesting that all sins are equal. All sins are not equal, and some are far worse than others, and therefore some require a great deal more condemnation than others. Some doctrinal differences can exist between Christians in fellowship with each other, for example, and other issues must necessarily divide so that we should consider certain people to be “anathema” or “accursed.”

Christians can debate what issues should be disqualifying issues, but one thing is clear. When a candidate participates in sins which God has said are capital crimes, we become complicit in his crimes by helping him get into a position of power where those capital crimes will be acted out.

Team NW asked us:

NWQ3: Are you saying that we should elect government leaders by the standards set out for Christian church leaders?​

GGA-NWQ3: Many of the standards, yes. Because many of the standards are universal moral qualities. Indeed, all of the standards set forth by Paul to Timothy regarding church leadership apply to all Christians, because there is only one standard – Jesus Christ. There are not many moral standards; that is the message of the amoral world. Certainly we don’t require John McCain to adhere to a standard of teaching Christian doctrine as one would expect a church leader to do, because that is an issue of jurisdiction rather than morality. However, all of the moral standards are the same: do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, and do not commit perjury.

We will answer question 5 before we answer question 4, since the bulk of this post will be spent answering question 4.

A man owns a factory in WWII Germany. He has personally seen a concentration camp and fully understands what is taking place in terms of the murder of Jews. As the owner of this factory, he is able to requisition the labor of Jews who are currently in those camps, moving them into his personal care, where he can prevent their mistreatment and eventual death. Now, obviously, in doing this he will only save a small fraction of those being killed, and in order to do this he must not speak out directly against the Nazi regime as to do so would result in his immediate imprisonment and death and the return of all those under his care to the concentration camps.

NWQ5: If he chooses to remain silent and only save those who [he] is able to, is he committing an immoral act?​

GGA-NWQ5: Yes, he is guilty, because he is actively taking part in the slave trade which also involves murder. He is aiding and abetting. He is killing Peter to pay Paul. He is assisting in the process of slave trade and murder… even if he was played by Liam Neeson in a big Hollywood movie.

Morality is universal and timeless. If everyone in Germany had acted according to Schindler’s standard, well… that’s what happened, for the most part, isn’t it? We know what happens when people do that.

However, if every businessman in Germany had refused to take part in that system of slave trade and murder, would that have been a wonderful thing, or a terrible thing? Praise God, it would have been a wonderful thing! Just because no one else will do the right thing… that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do the right thing, either. It is never the wrong time to do the right thing. And just because he might have been the only one to resist, nevertheless such an act would have been righteous, not cowardly or sinful. To resist that system and refuse to take part in it is exactly what he should have done. Schindler was a slave trader with good intentions. And we all know what the road to hell is paved with. Morality is universal. If it would have been right for everyone to live by that standard, then it was right for one man. There is only one standard of right and wrong and you don’t do evil that good may come of it.

NWQ4: How would the election of John McCain, personally, cause you to make that choice? I will want evidence on the likelihood of this as well, rather than foundationless accusations.​

The bulk of the rest of this round is devoted to answering this question. In this round, we will ask whether Sen. John McCain is presently responsible for the murder of innocent unborn children. Team NW appears to be in denial of McCain’s guilt as one who uses his governmental authority to knowingly direct taxpayer funds to pay for surgical and chemical abortions and to keep abortion legal.

What constitutes guilt in a murder? There are several issues that must be covered here.

1. What is murder?
2. What is conspiracy to murder?
3. Is it murder if a society’s laws say it is legal?

Is an act of unjust killing a murder even though the law says it is legal?

In round 2, we already covered the definition of murder, on which both sides agree. In that round, we also covered the issue of conspiracy to murder, and both sides agree regarding culpability in a crime and the sin therein.

The third question mentioned at the beginning of this round was whether an act is murder if that society’s laws say it is legal. Even if the law and government say a killing is legal, it is still murder if it wrongfully takes the life of the innocent.

The midwives in Egypt refused to obey the government’s lawful order to murder innocent babies. The author of Hebrews praises them (Hebrews 11:23), for they were faithful, and they obeyed God rather than men. Rahab betrayed her own nation and broke its laws to aid Israel’s rightful taking of the Promised Land, and she was justified in the eyes of God for her act of faith (Hebrews 11:30-31). Peter and James refused the order from legal authorities over them to stop preaching in the name of Jesus (Acts 5:29), saying “We must obey God rather than men.” If a nation’s law conflicts with God’s law, we must disobey that law, for it is no law at all.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” quoting both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas:

One may well ask, “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: There are just and there are unjust laws. I would agree with Saint Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”​

Now what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law [of God]. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law [of God].

If a man uses a law to condone, support and even fund the killing of innocent, unborn children, then it is an immoral and unjust law, and any person has a moral obligation to disobey that law. To obey and fulfill that law is to be guilty of its unjust nature – in this case, murder – just as Haman was guilty, just as King David was guilty, just as the high priest Caiaphas was guilty.

The Nuremberg Trials

After World War II, in January of 1947, Karl Sommer was tried by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. What did he do? According to "Murderous Science: Elimination by Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies, & Others in Germany, 1933-1945" by Benno Müller-Hill:

The SS Economic and Administrative Main Office controlled the use of concentration camp prisoner labor and fixed their wages. The company that employed the prisoners was responsible for their working conditions, lodging, food and hygiene. According to a postwar affidavit of Karl Sommer, a Nazi official who worked in the office responsible for concentration camp labor, the prisoners did not receive any wages. The various plants paid the money to the concentration camp inspectorate's administrative office, from where it was collected for the Reich treasury. Beginning in spring 1943, companies paid wages of RM 4 per day for unskilled workers and RM 6 per day for skilled labor. In addition, companies were expected to hand directly to the prisoners "a so-called 'achievement bonus'" for work in excess of the prescribed wages. Companies were allowed to deduct food and housing expenses from their wage payments to the Reich Treasurer.​

In some concentration camps, the SS employed slave labor consisting of Jews, Gypsies and other undesirables. Müller-Hill’s book goes on to explain that they made a fake show of “paying” prisoners a wage, but the money was fictional and virtually useless except for petty things within the camp itself, otherwise completely worthless outside the camp walls. It was designed to make the slave labor look good on paper.

Karl Sommer used his lawful governmental authority to administrate and fund the logistics of concentration camps that employed slave labor and murdered countless victims.

Karl Sommer was convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death. This administrator, this bureaucrat who stayed behind a desk and dealt with numbers and inventories and logistics, was a slave trader and murderer whose weapons were his tongue, a pen and a ledger. Sommer was guilty of murder; he was culpable in the crime and sin of slavery and murder because he was guilty of “conspiracy” to do so, just as Haman was. Sommer never fired a shot, never gassed a helpless victim. He didn’t have to.

And neither did McCain.

Walking in the Footsteps of Karl Sommer and Haman

On October 27, 2005, at 5:54 p.m., John McCain gave a “yea” vote for H.R. 3010, a bill which provided almost a third of a billion dollars to the Dept. of Labor, Health & Human Services, with a substantial portion of that going to fund surgical and chemical abortions, as well as to "family planning" projects that gave birth control to minors even against parents' wishes.

This bill stated the following:

SEC. 507.
(a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.

(b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

(c) The term ‘‘health benefits coverage’’ means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.

SEC. 508.
(a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion —
(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest;

This bill appropriated taxpayer revenues to fund "health benefits coverage" given by medical care providers which would include abortions in the cases of rape and incest.

John McCain voted YES to fund these medical services which clearly, in writing, includes funding abortions.

Does this make McCain a murderer?

Like Haman (and King David who ordered the death of Uriah, and the Jewish priests who paid Judas to betray Jesus), John McCain has conspired not only to defend but to support and fund the wrongful killing of the innocent. As of today, he is utterly unrepentant of that.

McCain vs. the Republican Party

McCain has fought for years, including this year to change the Republican Party platform regarding abortion to include exceptions for rape and incest. This would mean that the party’s official position would be that it should be legal to kill an unborn human being if his/her father is a rapist, thus executing the baby for his/her father’s sin. As recently as one month ago, McCain still held this position and disagreed with the Republican Party platform on this issue. This is his current, “up-to-date” position.

McCain vs. Mrs. McCain (she didn't get the memo :readthis:)

John McCain’s wife, Cindy, stated on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRx0J7tz-zQ to Katie Couric just a few weeks ago that her husband does not want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Couric: And do you believe Roe V. Wade should be overturned?
McCain: No. no.
Couric: No. Why not? Your husband does.
McCain: No. I don't think he does.
Couric: He believes it should be overturned. That's what he told me, and that it should go to the states.
McCain: Well, in that respect. Yes, yeah, I do. I understand what you're saying now. It's a states issue.
Couric: So, you believe it should be overturned or shouldn't be overturned.
McCain: I believe it's a states issue. That I do believe.​
Team NW gave us quotes from McCain’s friends regarding non-political events that occurred three decades ago. Surely they will not object if we “call to the stand” McCain’s own wife just a few weeks ago regarding his current stance on abortion. Who would know best where he stands on such a major issue as this, if not his wife? She doesn’t make a grammatical gaffe. She doesn’t misspeak. She emphatically says, not once but twice, that she opposes overturning Roe v. Wade and so does her husband. Of course, after Couric presses her, she realizes she has made a terrible flub, and retreats to a “states rights” stance, as if it is any better to say that states have the right to murder children any more than does the federal government. No government has the right to legalize infanticide. Stephen A. Douglas argued that slavery was a “states rights” issue, and Douglas was wrong.

McCain vs. the Tiniest Babies

John McCain wants to keep it legal to perform medical experiments on even the tiniest of humans through embryonic stem cell research. This is his current, up-to-date position. (And here.)

McCain vs. the Supreme Court

It is noteworthy that in this same article, McCain says that Antonin Scalia is a model for the kind of justice he would appoint to the Supreme Court. Scalia has stated in the Feb. 4, 2002 of the “Pew Forum” that he would rule against any law that would ban abortion nationwide.

"[T]he only one of my religious views that has anything to do with my job as a judge is the seventh commandment - thou shalt not lie. ... I will strike down Roe v. Wade, but I will also strike down a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade. ... One [side] wants no state to be able to prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to prohibit abortion, and they're both wrong..."​

Scalia does not believe in the unborn’s inherent and God-given right to life. He opposes banning abortion nationwide. He is the kind of judge McCain wants on the Supreme Court.

McCain’s Public Stance

John McCain, himself, has gone on record as saying that he wants to keep abortion legal. Project Vote Smart surveyed many politicians, including members of the Senate, asking specific questions on numerous issues, including abortion. When quizzed about abortion, McCain had the option of putting a check next to "Abortions should always be illegal." He refused. Instead, he checked the following two (emphasis ours):

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 went on public record, unapologetically, stating that “abortions should be legal.” And he has repeatedly made this same declaration many other times, too many to include here. This survey was done in 2004. This year, McCain has refused to take this survey, even after the admonition of many to do so. Nevertheless, his statements elsewhere prove that even within the last month, he still strongly affirms this view. It is his current position.


Today, John McCain wants to


Last round, Team NW stated:

It would be immoral to cast a vote for a man against whom we intend to rebel.

We asked them if it is immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to kill an innocent child? They answered, “Yes.”

We asked them if it is immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to fund the killing of an innocent child? They answered, “Yes.”

We asked if it is 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.”

If the father of that child (pictured at the end of our post last round) raped the child’s mother, then McCain is willing to fund the killing of that child – indeed he has already done so! – and would use the power of the presidential office to keep it legal to kill that child.

According to the standard set forth by Team NW themselves, it is immoral to vote for John McCain for president.

ROUND 3 QUESTIONS

GGQ11: In the case of Karl Sommer, did the fact that he stayed behind a desk and used only pen and paper constitute any defense against the charges of slavery and murder?

GGQ12: In a general sense, that is to say, on principle, were the Nuremberg Trials just, even though in nearly every charge the defendants were following the law of the land and used that excuse in their defense?

GGQ13: Is John McCain guilty of mass murder according to these same principles? If not, how is his case different in such a way as to excuse him from culpability?

GGQ14: Based on the evidence provided here, does McCain believe abortion should be legal in the cases of a) rape and/or incest, and b) embryonic stem cell research?

GGQ15: If answered yes to last question, 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 that affirm legal abortion?
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
The team of nicholsmom and WandereerInFog (NW) are now back on the clock and have until 9:35AM (MDT) on October 7th to make their 3rd round post.

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

WandererInFog

New member
Our opponent have for now spent yet another round showing that abortion is immoral, that murder is immoral, that Nazi's were both murderers and immoral, and well, nothing else. 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.

Again Seeking to Define Voting
In our opening we provided a working definition of what voting is in a representative Republic like the one we have here in the United States: 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.

NWN6: Do you agree with the the definition of voting offered? If not, please give one of your own.

A Further Exploration of Christian Liberty

While we will address several of the arguments raised by our opponents in the third round, we are going to move forward and begin to explore in greater detail some of the issues we have already presented. First we will expand our discussion of Paul's admonitions in Romans and elsewhere regarding the nature and exercise of Christian liberty. Second, we will explore some of the foundational concepts of God's law and expose how, despite having leveled the accusation of humanistic reasoning against our arguments in the second round, that it is, in fact, our opponents who are allowing their own humanistic prejudices to taint their understanding of God's Law. Third, we will briefly address our opponent's attempt to allege that a vote for John McCain falls under the definition we ourselves provided. And finally we will briefly cover our opponents questions and other issues raised which are only of tangential relation to the argument at hand.

In the third round, our opponents have dropped any mention of their previous argument that the section of Romans relating to “doubtful things” only applied to the direct circumstance of the eating of meat. In light of this we must assume our opponents have seen the weakness of their position in this regard. Now we will push forward to a fuller understanding of the nature and scope of our liberty in Christ.

We begin with understanding why this issue is so absolutely important within the Body of Christ. We have become so accustomed to accommodating immorality (anything which stands in violation of God's Will as revealed in the Holy Scriptures) in various degrees that we've lost the full impact of what it means to actually make the judgment that an action is immoral. God has set down certain commands for His Church such that, if a member of that Church is engaged in unrepentant immoral behavior, then we are commanded to provide counsel against the behavior and if the member still refuses to repent then we are to cast out and cut off that member from our local assembly of believers. Related to this we feel compelled to 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?

It was because of the weight of the matter of calling something immoral that Paul, on multiple occasions, had to remind those churches to which he ministered to refrain from going beyond God's law in making judgment regarding the morality of various matters. In general we see that two incorrect approaches were being taken within the churches, whom Paul separated out as strong believers and weak ones. The strong believers were tempted to push their newfound freedom in Christ to its outermost limits - to go as far they could in a given area without actually committing a sin. The weak, fearful of committing any offense, surrounded themselves with additional, self-imposed restrictions.

This is where the problems began. The strong believer was tempted to look down on their brother as being legalistic and chide them for self-imposed rules, while the weak believer was tempted in turn to take his self-imposed rules and force them on his brother who he viewed as too undisciplined.

In the passage we've been discussing thus far (Romans 14:1-12 - click on the link to read the entire passage), Paul directs his statement to the strong believer, commanding him to “Accept the one who is weak in the faith”. Proslambanō (accept) is a compound verb, the prefix pros being a preposition that intensifies the basic verb, making it a command. In other words, Paul was not simply suggesting, but commanding, that strong believers accept weak believers. The voice in which it is used also also gives the sense that this is not be a grudging acceptance, but a personal and willing one. None of this speaks of doctrinal or moral compromise which Paul strongly rebukes (Gal 1:8). He was not speaking, for example, of rules such as those imposed by the Judiazers, who made circumcision a requirement for entrance into the Body of Christ. What Paul was recognizing here was that some Christians needed to place extra restrictions on themselves, and those who were stronger in the faith should allow them to do so without passing judgments.

In relation to this portion of the passage, we would never seek to pass judgment on individuals who felt they could not vote for McCain/Palin, but we would also recognize that this is a self-imposed rule, and not one found even in principle in the Scriptures. However, still consistently following Paul's teaching in this regard, we must object when they seek to turn a self-imposed restriction into a rule that is binding on the Body of Christ as a whole. Our opponents have spoken a great deal about Nazis and Nuremberg, but they continue to fail to provide any actual Biblical basis for their position. Thus, we must regard it as a self-imposed restriction and respond to it as such.

On Sin and God's Law
We now must move forward into a discussion of the very nature of God's law, as we feel that our opponents are erring in several points.
In saying that one type of immorality requires “equal condemnation” as any other kind of immorality, our opponents are suggesting that all sins are equal. All sins are not equal, and some are far worse than others, and therefore some require a great deal more condemnation than others. Some doctrinal differences can exist between Christians in fellowship with each other, for example, and other issues must necessarily divide so that we should consider certain people to be “anathema” or “accursed.”
No sin is ontologically worse than any other sin, and to contend that it is, is to step far outside of what God has revealed in His Word - to set up our purely humanistic judgments. It is our hope that our opponents do this out of ignorance of what God has revealed in this regard, and as such we feel compelled to spend some time exploring it.

As a humanistic understanding of sin is so rampant in our age, we must first establish precisely what sin is. Sin is any offense committed against God. Not against our fellow man. Not against ourselves. This is why when David is confronted by Nathan about the murder of Uriah, he cries out “I have sinned against the LORD." All sin therefore is rebellion against God. This sin may come in many different forms, but for us to make the judgment that one sin is greater than another is to essentially deny what sin is. We also see this in that God commands the same punishment for all sins: restitution. In certain instances, the only way a person can make restitution is by forfeiting his own life, but this remains a form of restitution.

All that said, we again return to the original point to which our opponents were responding. Our opponents say that if we vote for someone who will allow even some abortions to continue that we become morally culpable for those abortions (an assertion they make without scriptural support). To remain consistent they must apply this to every other moral issue, since all sin is equally rebellion against God. Their own evasion on this point just demonstrates that they are creating a standard to which even they themselves cannot hold consistently.

On McCain, Morality, and Murder

From here we must move for a brief moment to addressing our opponents statement that voting for John McCain would violate the rule we have derived from Scripture: that it would be immoral to cast a vote for someone who God would not have us view as a legitimate authority - against whom God would command us to rebel. This particular section of their rebuttal spends much of its time wandering off into unrelated tangents (such as comments made by John McCain's wife) making it difficult to follow. We will do our best, though, to address every relevant part of the argument presented.

Despite what our opponents said, neither murder nor conspiracy to commit murder have been defined within the terms of this debate. Murder, Biblically defined, is the taking of life without sanction from God. Conspiracy to commit murder would be actively, willfully, and knowingly participating in the planning or commission of such an act. Whether we and our opponents agree on this definition we really can't say, as they have never actually offered up a clear definition at all.

In the first part of this portion of their rebuttal, our opponents say that the civil government's laws have no bearing on what would be considered murder, and we agree with this - civil law has nothing to do with our definition of murder.

They then spend some time talking about Karl Sommer and discussions of the Nuremberg trials. To which we can only say that if Sommer were indeed actively, willingly, and knowingly participating in the murders that took place in concentration camps then he would indeed be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

Next in regards to sec. 507 & 508 of SR 3010 from 2005, our opponents ask:
Does this make McCain a murderer?
Well, the answer to that is rather simple: No. The Senate in general, and individual Senators in particular, have a very limited amount of control over the individual items within an appropriations bill. This bill passed the Senate by margin of 94-3, and was voted for even by the strongest abortion opponents in the Senate, including Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina who is regularly ranked as the most conservative member of the Senate.
So why would even the most adamantly pro-life Senators, even those holding to a position of being Pro-Life without exceptions, vote for a bill that contains funding for even a small number of abortions?
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. More importantly though, the answer is that funding abortions is not actually what the bill does. Title V of that appropriation gives money to the Department of Health and Human Services and then gives guidelines and restrictions regarding how they are allowed to spend it. It doesn't dictate that they spend a single penny on abortions, though it does give them the technical authority, under extremely narrow circumstances, to do so. Our opponents also failed to quote the entirety of Sec 508, and quite specifically 508.2(d)1, which withholds funding from any state or federal agency that discriminates on the basis of the actual healthcare provider refusing to perform abortions. (This particular clause, also utilized in later appropriations bills is the precise one that Bush administration has been using to attempt to prevent health care providers from discriminating against employees whose moral beliefs prevent from being willing to administer even certain forms of contraception.) So, when taken in total, the chances of the this bill funding any abortions at all could be assumed by a reasonable person to be essentially nil.

Next in regards to the sort of Supreme Court justices John McCain would nominate:

It is noteworthy that in this same article, McCain says that Antonin Scalia is a model for the kind of justice he would appoint to the Supreme Court. Scalia has stated in the Feb. 4, 2002 of the “Pew Forum” that he would rule against any law that would ban abortion nationwide.
"[T]he only one of my religious views that has anything to do with my job as a judge is the seventh commandment - thou shalt not lie. ... I will strike down Roe v. Wade, but I will also strike down a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade. ... One [side] wants no state to be able to prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to prohibit abortion, and they're both wrong..."​
Scalia does not believe in the unborn’s inherent and God-given right to life. He opposes banning abortion nationwide. He is the kind of judge McCain wants on the Supreme Court.
Barring a constitutional amendment, abortion may not be banned on the federal level. 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. All that lies within the court's power to do is to reverse Roe v. Wade and return the decision to the individual states.

We could go on further, but we think this is sufficient to demonstrate that, despite having written a great number of words on the subject, our opponents have yet to make an even remotely viable case for referring to McCain as being guilty of “murder” or “conspiracy to commit murder”.

Answering Questions

We will now take a moment to address each of their questions in turn, before providing a handful of our own.

NWA-GGQ11: It would constitute a defense against the charge of murder, but not of conspiracy to commit murder.
NWA-GGQ12: To avoid getting grossly off-topic, we will simply answer that “following the law of the land” is not a defense against violating God's Law.
NWA-GGQ13: No. The answer to the second part of this question would require that we acknowledge that there is even the remotest parallel between actions taken by John McCain and those taken by the Nazis which is not something we see any reason to acknowledge this.
NWA-GGQ14: We believe that John McCain supports the reversal of Roe v. Wade, which represents the only action regarding abortion which, under the US Constitution, can be taken regarding abortion at the federal level. He is historically inconsistent on the issue of abortions related to rape/incest, however as passing specific laws is in the realm of the state rather than of the federal government this portion of his position is irrelevant to the actual enactment of laws. In terms of stem-cell research, there is again some degree of inconsistency, he opposes the creation of embryos for the purpose of stem cell research, but has voted once to allow the use of embryos created for in-vitro fertilization which would otherwise simply destroyed.
NWA-GGQ15: The only sense in which a President of the United States can work to outlaw abortion is through the nomination of constructionist Supreme Court justices. McCain has pledged to only nominate “strict constructionist” judges to the SCOTUS. Any judge who actually holds to this position would vote to over-turn Roe v. Wade. As John McCain has been consistent in expressing his desire to see Roe v. Wade overturned, we see no reason to believe that he wouldn't nominate judges which reflect that.

Looking Forward

We all know that it is wise to count the cost before building a tower (Luke 14:28-30). It is also wise to devise a strategy for defeat of the enemy army, having knowledge of the numbers, or else be wise in making terms of surrender (Luke 14:31-32). We do realize that these examples which Jesus provided are used to help us realize the great cost of discipleship. But take note here, 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.

Let's count the enemy's troops & see if we can devise a strategy for winning this battle:

NWQ8: Which candidates are on the ballot in a sufficient number of states to even have the mathematical possibility of being elected President?
NWQ9: Which candidates have the support of even a scant 10% of the US population?
NWQ10: What is the benefit of a vote cast for a candidate who cannot win?
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
DING DING DING

Round #3 is OVER!!!

The team of GodsfreeWill and The Graphite (GG) are now back on the clock and have until 10:15PM (MDT) on October 8th to make their 4th round post.

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

The Graphite

New member
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?
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
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

New member
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 all States 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.
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
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

New member
Guilty in the Eyes of the Lord

Guilty in the Eyes of the Lord

[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.)


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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top