Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Should a Christian ever vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Posted by truthtalklive on October 25, 2007

Todays Guests are Greg Koukl, President of Stand to Reason (www.str.org) and Bob Enyart, Talk Show Host from Colorado (www.enyart.com)

Advertisements

72 Responses to “Should a Christian ever vote for a pro-abortion candidate?”

  1. Troy said

    No, a Christian should never vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

  2. Anonymous said

    Personally, I was very disappointed in this debate. I truly believe that we must strive to honor God in very decision that we make. My problem was that Mr. Enyart distorted the debate – poisoning the well with terms like “mass murderer,” OF course, no one would vote for a mass murderer. He came off as arrogant and uninformed. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he loves God and wants to honor God in all he does, but I just think that he could learn from these things and become a more accomplished communicator – one that will be listened to when he speaks. We all fall short and have much room to grow. May we pray about the true issues behind this debate and come to conclusions that honor our wonderful Savior.

  3. Will D said

    There’s no evidence that Hitler ever murdered anyone, yet I have no problem calling him a “mass murderer.” Giuliani is a radical pro-abort, and even supports the Nazi-esque partial-birth abortion. I have no doubt in my mind that Giuliani would appoint conservative judges. Unfortunately, “conservative” now means pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-guns, as evidenced by Rudy Giuliani himself.

  4. Quinn said

    Greg Koukl said that he would “let the listeners decide” if he was a moral relativist or not.

    I listened to the first half hour of the discussion and I would not refer to Koukl as a “moral relativist” because that term would be too soft and Koukl would not consider that term accurate enough to describe his thinking.

    I think the more accurate term for Koukl’s thinking is just plain EVIL.

    If his thinking were put into practice in Nazi Germany and we didn’t stop the legalized murder of Jews through the war Germany would STILL be murdering Jews today.

    When given the choice between voting for Stalin and Hitler Koukl made it clear that he would vote for the lesser of two evils (or as he euphemisticly put it “the greater good of the two” if I recall right) and would then cast his vote for Hitler.

    Koukl has NO PROBLEM AT ALL with the fact that there are 0 pro-life justices on the Supreme Court bench and seems almost oblivious to the fact that the allegedly “Catholic” and “conservative” justices on the court signed their names to a partial-birth abortion manual in the recent PBA Ban decision. Of course, its not an actual ban, since if an abortionist unintentionally delivers the baby past the navel before killing him/her, then there is no penalty and no crime according to the allegedly Catholic, constructionist judges decision. Who would be standing there to judge whether the banned procedure came about “unintentionally”?

    And for those who have not heard yet, the abortionists are taking the advice of the justices given in the decision where they recommend the baby be killed in the womb and once the baby has died they can take him/her out and perform the same abortion procedure on the dead baby that the court “banned”.

    Koukl’s thinking leads only to the destruction of the church and absolute morality. Victory is nowhere in sight based on his commitment to the Republican party and “the lesser of two evils”.

    Victory can only be achieved by taking a hard line on God’s absolute moral standard and only supporting candidates who also hold to that absolute moral standard. Either we give them our support or we give a mass murderer like Hillary or Giuliani (who promoted mass murder through his actions and inactions as mayor of NYC) our support.

    Which candidate would Jesus vote for? Its safe to say he wouldn’t vote for a mass murderer like Giuliani who is “personally opposed” to abortion, but completely unwilling to do anything to stop the slaughter of 3,700 babies a day.

  5. Quinn said

    And I echo Will’s point on labeling someone who never personally murdered someone else a mass murderer.

    Hitler may never have murdered a single person with his bare hands, but his leadership and philosophy was that of a mass murderer. He just had other people to his dirty work for him.

    Same with Giuliani. He has never murdered a single baby with his own hands, he has just helped bring about those thousands of murders in NYC where he lead and governed.

    HE EVEN PROMOTED TAXPAYER FUNDING OF ABORTION! THIS IS WHAT KOUKL CALLS THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS!?

    Giuliani promotes taxpayer funding of abortion in Nov. 1989

    Giuliani promotes taxpayer funding of abortion in July 2007

  6. Quinn said

    FYI

    You mispelled Candidate in the title of this blog and you also misspelled Mormonism in the title of another blog.

  7. Jason said

    Greg Koukl argued in the debate that it’s best to vote for a person who is willing to kill less people, whether it be Hillary Clinton or Rudy Guliani, rather than to vote for a Christian who is not willing to kill anyone, but is not likely to get elected.

    He said it is good to choose someone who is willing to kill 10 people rather than someone who is willing to kill 100.

    Greg says in his books to take an argument out to its logical extreme to see if it holds water.

    So, if someone has a hereditary disease that will kill them, by his line of thinking, it is better to kill that one person, rather than let them procreate and pass the disease onto many others who would die from the disease.

    His line of thinking would suggest that we should kill all people who have deadly diseases, then we could save the lives of millions of people. By His line of thinking, eugenics are good and moral.

    He would agree with the high priest, Caiaphas:

    John 11
    48If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

    49Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.


    Koukl would have supported the political leaders in Jesus day who murdered one man because they thought it would save the whole nation.

    The Bible calls these men evil, and murderers. They miscalculated because God sent the Romans to judge the nation for this evil act in 70 AD.

    The reason morality and the Church in America is collapsing is because our best known and most powerful “conservative” Christian leaders such as Koukl have fallen into moral relativism by compromising on the Word of God, and the command: Do not murder.

  8. John said

    What makes you think that ANY of the candidates are trustworthy?
    The very act of becoming a politician is self corrupting.

  9. Thanks for pointing that out, Quinn. All fixed. There are several who post, so no telling who spelled those wrong.

  10. gus b. said

    Many politicians were convicted at Nuremberg. I doubt if they murdered any Jews, themselves. Yet, they were found guilty. And, Christian leaders applauded that. NOW, in America, Christian leaders are willing to endorse Nazi-like politicans.

  11. robbie r said

    gregg is more cut out for the sean hannity show. i think that is where he must have gotten his belief system from because, that is where i hear the humanistic arguments he makes,it is not from the BIBLE. gregg ridiculed bob for using words like mass murderer which makes it obvious to me what he doesn’t consider abortion(the intentional taking of a childs innocent defenseless life) to be. gregg is confused and if he as he says has written a book on moral relativism then he maybe should go back and read it to see what he has become.

  12. Ryan said

    Guliani has donated over 6 times to Planned Parenthood over the years. A True Christian can only vote for candidates that is pro-life. When you stand before Jesus in the White Throne Judgment I certainly don’t want the BLOOD of one of the little ones on my hands. I am going to vote for Alan Keyes. Even if I will have to write his name in by November. I am sure that I don’t have to tell you what Jesus said about hurting one of the little ones? Better that they not be born, be ground to powder and so on. Ryan

  13. Brett said

    It Stands to Reason that Mr. Koukl did not want Mr. Enyart to cite scripture during the debate. He trusts more in the ability of the wicked to be moral. Mr Koukl stated that “you’re not going to find a verse that’s going to apply directly to the circumstance here…there is no scriptural statement that’s going to inform the circumstances, what we have to do is draw from our best understanding of the text”. Mr. Koukl, what am I to do with the atheist that points out the scripture …there is no God? Sounding intelligent is what the Pro-Life industry hopes will continue fooling the church into believing that after having raised over $250,000,000.00 million dollars, then wasting it on pro-choice politicians and child killing regulations, that more money is the answer to ending the American Holocaust. Americans and the Christian Church have perpetuated Hitler’s nightmare in the name of legislation, fund raising, and party affiliation. It Stands to Reason, by reason of insanity, that I would BOTHER to vote for a politician that would honor wicked men before God.

    SHAME ON GEORGE W. BUSH FOR NOMINATING PRO-DEATH JUSTICES ROBERTS AND ALITO. SHAME ON THESE MEN AND THIS COURT FOR REMOVING PERSONHOOD FROM THE UNBORN CHILD IN GONZALEZ V. CARHART (APRIL 2007) AND SHAME ON DR. DOBSON, JAY SEKULOW, NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE, ETC. FOR CHEERLEADING THE COURT IN THIS HORRIFIC RULING. May Almighty God, our Creator and Savior, have mercy on our wickedness.

  14. David said

    Mr. Koukl Caught Red Handed

    Mr. Koukl admitting that he would vote for Hillary (if in fact history suggests she would kill less babies than Guliani) proves Mr. Enyarts point that:

    1) Mr. Koukl is a moral relitivist; and
    2) subsequently, Mr. Koukl loses the debate.

    Question: Mr. Koukl, at what point would you consider your support
    for the lesser evil to be evil? Only a moral relitivist
    could reason an evil to be good! Only a moral relitivist
    could choose hands with the least amount of blood.

    Answer: Do right and risk the consequences.

  15. Anonymous said

    Do you guys ever wonder how the right wingers can be against abortions yet be in favor of the secret torture prisons and preemptive wars?

  16. John said

    I have wondered about such things.Perhaps it has to do with the age of the victims?For example, the adults have had their “time in the sun” to be spiritually saved, reproduce,live life,and so on, while an unborn is “innocent” and has never had a chance at the same opportunities.Input on this anybody?

  17. Chuck said

    We need to honor God and His command “Do Not Murder.” If the Republican Party wants a Pro Choice candidate, it is not our obligation to forsake God, and vote for a their candidate. Ask yourself who would Jesus vote for? I’m Voting for Pro Life Alan Keyes. (Alan Keyes.Com)

  18. John said

    Who would Jesus vote for? Would Jesus even be voting? Hmmmmmmmm.
    I’ve not the right to even try and get in THAT head.

  19. ADB said

    For once I agree with the Wiccan. Saying who Jesus would vote for pretentious in the extreme.

  20. Mike said

    Mr. Koukl is clearly and obviously a moral relativist. Mr. Koukl did not want to answer specific questions because it would have revealed the flaw in his argument; that he is compromising on God’s commandment, Thou shall not murder.

  21. Mike said

    If George Bush was not a coward he would sign an executive order proclaiming an absolute end to artificial abortions. He has nothing to lose at this point in his career. I once thought he might have been a quiet prolifer, but boy was I wrong. Not one single unborn life has been saved since he became president. Not one! What’s really sad, is that christians are not doing anything to reverse this mess we are in.

  22. dAve in castle rock said

    no, christians should never support a pro abortion candidate or a pro abortion candidate that plays to the prolife community just for votes….

  23. Bob Enyart said

    Hopefully, more Christians will see the immorality of campaigning for and supporting openly wicked and murderous leaders. For those interested, here are the notes I jotted down in the hour before our debate:

    Christians should not support mass murderers like Rudi Giuliani (who as a governing official and candidate promotes child killing through public hospitals, tax funding, police enforcement, etc.).

    Moral relativist Christians would oppose a candidate who was caught embezzling funds (not because it violates God’s command, Do not steal, but because it is politically-incorrect). And while they’d not support a Republican caught embezzling, they support Republican candidates who brag of their support for killing children.

    The Gospels mention a pragmatic political party, the Herodians, the religious leaders who allied themselves with Herod Antipas, thinking that the Herodian dynasty was the lesser evil (than any alternative allegiance, with a choice between Herod or Christ, they would choose Herod), thinking the Herods were the best the Jewish worshippers could pragmatically expect in their hopes of attaining to their kingdom on Earth. (I have this understanding of the Herodians from my recollection of reading, way back in the 1970s, Alfred Edershiem’s Life & Times of Jesus the Messiah, a classic written in the 1800s.)

    Like Rudi Giuliani, Herod was personally sexually immoral and murderous. Greg Koukl’s moral relativism would defend supporting Herod. But John the Baptist, instead of joining the Herodians, rebuked Herod, and for his courage, this wicked ruler beheaded the man whom Jesus described as the greatest born to women (Mat. 11:11). But how would Jesus describe Koukl? Greg’s moral relativism might have led him to campaign for Herod (as he does for Giuliani), and instead of persecution, Herod might have hired Koukl as an apologist for his murderous reign and his hopes for the continued support of Ceasar after Antipas built Tiberias (Koukl: yes, Herod murdered John the Baptist, but I would still campaign for him to rule).

    Greg Koukl is imitating the pragmatic religious leaders, the Herodians.

    Mat 22:16, 18 …the Herodians, [said], “Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth [lip service]… But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?” [& Mark 12:13]

    Mark 3:5-6 [Jesus saw] the hardness of their hearts, [and] the Herodians [plotted] against Him, how they might destroy Him.

    “You shall not murder” (Rom. 13:9) “Do not kill the innocent” (Exodus 23:7)

    Romans 3:8 mentions “do[ing] evil that good may come of it” (Romans 3:8), Paul considered it slander to be accused of something Christians now embrace, doing evil, that good may come of it.

    “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29)

    Giuliani is not only radically pro-abortion, but for years even supported the especially horrific partial-birth abortion. Giuliani is radically pro-homosexual, and would ban all handguns.

    New York Daily News, March 8, 2004 Rudy Giuliani came out yesterday against President Bush’s call for a ban on gay marriage. … “I certainly wouldn’t support [a ban] at this time,” added Giuliani, who lived with a gay Manhattan couple when he moved out of Gracie Mansion during his nasty divorce.

    Secular humanists who support Giuliani: Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, etc.

    Publicans: tax collectors, public building contractors, and military suppliers.

    The New Testament condemns the publicans, so Christians now sell their souls for the Re-publicans.

    The theme of much of the Old Testament, from the books of Moses, through Joshua & Judges, through the prophets, is that God’s people did not trust Him, nor obey Him, not with national politics, and instead made alliances with wicked leaders, and so God abandoned them to their own destruction.

    -Bob Enyart
    Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

  24. Carl said

    Koukl said he would vote to kill 10 people, he said he would vote for the lessor of 2 evils. God draws the line at murder, but where does Koukl draw the line? at 10? at 100? at 100,000, at 100,000,000? What line must be crossed that will turn christians from supporting wickedness and back to God?

  25. Dave said

    Christians like Koukl would rather see a “win” by his team the Republicans instead of “justice”. He thinks that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito would fight for the Personhood of a child. I guess Koukl did not read the Supreme Court decision of Gonzales v. Carhart. Bob Enyart was very nice to call him a moral relativist, I prefer to call him an idiot.

  26. John said

    “Politics I supposed to be the second-oldest profession.I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.”
    -Ronald Reagan.

  27. gus b. said

    Stu, help me out, here. I just re- listened to this show. Toward the end of your interview, Mr. Koukl says Rudi Giuliani will appoint justices like Thomas and Scalia. Pastor Enyart points out these two justices do not believe in the personhood of the child ( their public statements, clearly and disgustingly illustrate this). To which, Mr. Koukl says, “Pro-Life Justices are not revelant to this topic.” HUH?

  28. Andrew said

    Greg:

    To support or not support a murderer is an objective moral choice. To support the better of two murderers is relative. Don’t try to influence reasoning by promoting your expertise (you wrote a book) because your expertise is in fact, relative. Thickness of volume does not affect accuracy in defining moral relativism. Webster should post your photograph next to “moral relativist.”

  29. Bob Enyart said

    Thanks guys for the great comments:

    Carl: where does Koukl draw the line? … at 100,000,000? What line must be crossed that will turn Christians from supporting wickedness and back to God?

    Dave: Koukl thinks that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito would fight for the Personhood of a child. I guess he did not read the Supreme Court decision of Gonzales v. Carhart.

    John quotes Reagan: “Politics I supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.”

    Gus B: Mr. Koukl says Giuliani will appoint justices like Thomas and Scalia. Pastor Enyart points out these two do not believe in personhood… to which Koukl says, “Pro-Life Justices are not relevant to this topic.”

    Andrew: To support the better of two murderers is relative. … Webster should post your photograph next to “moral relativist.”

    We re-aired this show at http://kgov.com/bel_56kbps/20071026

    Pastor Bob Enyart
    Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

  30. Brian said

    Greg says he is not a moral relativist. Yet he cannot say with any conviction that voting for a man who would support killing 30 million Jews is wrong – at least not until he found out who that man was running against. After all he doesn’t know that the opponent might want to kill 60 million Jews. He has no moral compass to go by.

    Greg was even against voting for a third party candidate who had perfect doctrine but no chance to win. Of course would he say the same thing if that third party candidate was John the Baptist, Moses, or Jesus. I suggest he would probably recant that position – and rightfully so. However this proves that his morality sways with the breeze.

    God was upset with David when he took a census of his army because God wants us to trust in him not numbers. God turned away men from Gideon’s army when they were only somewhat vastly outnumbered. Yet Greg wants us to look to polls to determine how best God should win this fight. Greg wants us to trust his wisdom of when to compromise God principles, blissfully unaware that he is inviting another losing battle with Ai.

    Greg pointed out that he didn’t want activist judges. However non-activist slavery judges wrote the Dread Scott decision. Non-activist German judges killed millions of Jews. Peter said “We must obey God rather than men,” but Greg takes offense as the reasoning of the Apostle Peter because Greg doesn’t see how it could possibly lead to victory. So because Greg can’t see God working outside of his box, Greg wants to tell judges that they must obey man, rather than God. That’s not only sad – it’s sinful.

  31. Quinn said

    Where are Koukl’s supporters at??

    Except for a post from one jelly-spined anonymous supporter of Koukl’s its basicly 29 comments in support of Enyart vs 1 for Koukl.

    Hey, I just had a thought. If there was an election between Koukl and Enyart would Koukl support electing Enyart because he has overwhelming support and is the “most electable” with a real chance of winning? Because voting for Koukl, even if his position was morally better than Enyart’s (which it isn’t) voting for Koukl would be like voting for Alan Keyes for president.

    Right?

  32. Brian said

    Anonymous said: “My problem was that Mr. Enyart distorted the debate – poisoning the well with terms like ‘mass murderer,’ OF course, no one would vote for a mass murderer.”

    He did inflame the debate, and perhaps poisoned the well, but he was also dead on accurate from my perspective. Anonymous, I don’t know if you respect the Bibles opinion or not. Perhaps you are like me and would say that “if the Bible disagrees with me then I must be wrong,” or perhaps you would reserve your own council. Depending on how you view the Bible, will determine how effective it is to argue this point with you.

    “Whatsoever a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” (Proverbs 23:7)
    ”You have heard that it was said to those of old, ’You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:27-28)
    “For from within, out of the heart of men, sproceed evil thoughts, adulteries, ufornications, murders…” (Mark 7:17)

    If someone supports all forms of killing babies, include the barbaric partial birth abortion – then from what he thinks in his heart, so is he.

    As someone else pointed out – and it was a good point – Hitler may not have actually killed anyone.

  33. John said

    Nor did Charlie Manson and Rev.Jim Jones.
    However….people should still,nontheless,always have the freedom of choice in this matter.The freedom to make our own choices and try to figure things out for ourselves is the only real freedom that any of us really have left in this land.

  34. Quinn said

    Anyone who exercises their “choice” to murder an innocent person, whether they be a preborn baby or an 80 yeaer-old grandma is to be tried in court and upon conviction surely, swiftly, painfully and publicly executed.

    We want to see abortion re-criminalized and those involved in attempting or successfully having the baby killed broguht to trial and upon conviction executed.

    That’s my “choice” as far as enforcing the law and government goes and God supports that choice fully.

  35. John said

    Painful, public executions?
    My,my, I bet you just radiate a Christ-like glow……………NOT!
    And God supports you’re choice, does he?Did he whisper this in you’re left ear?

  36. Bob Enyart said

    Ok, Ok, so it’s 33 to 2.

    Quinn, they’re gaining on us!)

    I need to clarify a comment I made. I unintentionally exaggerated when I stated that Hillary supported the PBA ban. I was taking this position from when she and Bill came to Colorado in 1999 and spoke, as a couple, to Columbine parents, and Brian Rohrbough told Bill Clinton, “Mr. President, when you vetoed the PBA ban, you became responsible for murder far more violent than what happened to our children.” At that point, Clinton replied, with Hillary at his side, that he would have signed the bill, but it did not have an exception for the life of the mother. To the extent that they were a two-for-one deal in the White House, I had always assumed that was her position also. Willing to support the law, as long as it had exceptions (sounds Republican to me).

    At any rate, it was wrong to say outright, that Hillary supported the ban. I should have clarified, and in the intensity of the debate, I did not realize I had done that. Also, I kept wanting to talk about Rudy’s pro-abortion actions as Mayor of NY, but never got that in.

    Thanks Stu for this blog, and the opportunity to post corrections.

    -Bob Enyart

  37. Quinn said

    Thanx for admitting that slight mistake put forth in the discussion Bob!

    That kind of honesty shows that you are concerned about the truth and open to changing what you believe based upon the evidence.

    John

    God makes it very clear that those convicted of capital crimes are to be executed in the folowing manner.

    SURELY – meaning every person convicted of that crime receives execution

    SWIFTLY – within days after the conviction instead of decades

    PAINFULLY – stoning, firing squad, or another painful and quick method to deter would be murderers

    PUBLICLY – to show the community what happens to those convicted of rape, kidnapping, adultery or murder

    To read the evidence go here

    http://www.theologyonline.com/DEATH.HTML

  38. John said

    The thing is,I’ve been telling people that you’re God condones murder,and other things, for some time now.No need for you to conferm it.You see,I wasn’t really dissagreeing with you, as I myself have a very “old fashioned” idea of “justice”.Only you’re motivation for murdering others.
    You will see if you read my replies at the”Is Abortion Murder?” blog that I condone murder,depending on the situation.So I guess you sure showed me,eh?[smile]

  39. Quinn said

    Hey John. Are you telling us that you lack the intelligence to DIFFERENTIATE between “killing” and “murder”?

    If someone executes a convicted murderer do they become a murderer by executing the convicted murderer? Is that what you believe?

    Abortion is murder. See murdered babies from abortion right here in the images and the video of an abortion taking place http://www.abortionno.org

  40. Brian said

    John, please stop being a hypocrite.

    You support putting to death little babies who have done nothing wrong (which you rightly call murder), and then stand against the execution of the guilty (which you wrongly call murder).

    So little babies, Johnny is all for killing without due process – but not a guilty murderer after due process. Liberals like John have to stand justice on its head to reject God.

  41. You all have no idea what “moral relativism” means. Rather than just throwing out the term, would someone care to define it? I think I see the criticism you’re trying to level against Greg’s position here, but one thing you can’t call it is moral relativism – unless you also don’t object to me calling you all a bag of potato chips. Words have meaning.

  42. Let me elaborate: Greg claiming that Christians have an objective moral obligation to, by choosing the lesser of two evils, act in such a way as to produce the greatest moral good – in this case, saving the innocent lives of future aborted unborn humans – is NOT moral relativism. Perhaps he’s mistaken in his reasoning, but he IS making an argument from an objectivist position, make no mistake. Now, if he were to say that he thinks he should vote for Guliani, but if you as a Christian think you shouldn’, then that’s what’s right for you – THAT’S moral relativism. Do you see the difference?

  43. Jeff said

    definition of moral relativism:

    Moral Relativism – What’s It All About?
    Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person’s individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what’s right for you, and I’ll decide what’s right for me. Moral relativism says, “It’s true for me, if I believe it.”

    source: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/Moral-Relativism.htm

  44. Aaron is right on the money.

    As Christians in a liberal democracy our obligation is to advance the common good the best we can. That means that there may be circumstances in which voting for a prochoice politician may, paradoxically, advance the common good better than voting for a prolife politician. Here is an illustration I used an article I published two yeyars ago in Christian Research Journal:

    The goal of both the church and the state is to advance the public good. That seems simple enough. Some Christians would conclude, therefore, that they should always vote for the candidate, regardless of that candidate’s party affiliation, whose views most closely line up with what advances the public good. This voting strategy, however, ignores the realities of our constitutional republic and its two-party system. Consider the following illustration.

    Suppose that Mr. Smith is running against Mr. Jones for the state assembly (a law-making body). Mr. Smith is strongly pro-abortion while Mr. Jones is strongly pro-life. The typical conservative Christian who considers only this factor would say that one ought to vote for Mr. Jones. Imagine, however, that Mr. Smith belongs to the pro-life party, which holds the majority (26) of the 51 seats in the assembly. Mr. Jones, on the other hand, belongs to the pro-abortion party, which holds the minority (25) of the seats in the assembly. If Mr. Smith wins, then the balance of power in the assembly stays with the pro-life party, and it can maintain leadership of the assembly, fill committee chairmanships with members of the pro-life party, and hold hearings and votes on legislation that is important to pro-lifers. On the other hand, suppose that Mr. Jones wins. Even though Mr. Jones is pro-life, the balance of power would shift to the pro-abortion party. The pro-abortion party would now control the assembly leadership and thus the assembly committees that decide what sort of legislation gets out of committee; therefore, if Mr. Jones is elected, it actually harms the pro-life cause. In fact, if you think that pro-life legislation advances the public good (as many Christians do) – that such legislation may help protect the smallest creatures who bear God’s image – then, ironically, voting for Mr. Jones may be inconsistent with the implication of Jesus’ admonition that the church and the state should be concerned with the good of those who bear God’s image.

    Consider another example. Suppose the U.S. Supreme Court is only one vote short of overturning Roe v. Wade. You, like many Christians, believe that abortion is an evil that not only wrongs unborn children but also tarnishes the souls of the women who elect to have these abortions. Although you realize that overturning Roe would not outlaw abortion – for it would merely return the matter to the states as it had been until 1973 – you rightly conclude that this change in the law would permit you and your fellow citizens to pass legislation that would at least protect the unborn and their mothers in your state. Your political party, however, the pro-life party, is in the midst of a primary race for a U.S. Senate seat currently occupied by a proabortion senator who is the minority leader of the Senate judiciary committee. This is the committee that holds hearings on the President’s judicial nominations to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The primary pits three candidates against each other: Ms. Johnson, a devout pro-life Christian who has made comments in the past that have been interpreted as racist; Mr. Adams, a proabortion atheist who is moderate on other issues such as sex education and gay rights; and Mr. Baker, a moderate on abortion (he thinks some legal restrictions are permissible) who is liberal on other issues such as gay rights and school vouchers.

    Imagine that you live in a very liberal state, and thus it will be virtually impossible for Ms. Johnson to beat the incumbent senator in the general election. Mr. Adams and Mr. Baker therefore stand a better chance; however, only Mr. Adams has promised to support the judicial nominees of the President, a strong pro-lifer who thinks that Roe was wrongly decided. Assuming that pro-life laws advance the public good, voting against Ms. Johnson, a pro-lifer, and for Mr. Adams, a pro-abortion supporter, is strategically wise, for it increases the likelihood that the President’s nominees to the federal courts will be approved, and these nominees, which will include future Supreme Court justices, will have an opportunity to rule in ways that advance the public good (or at least put up judicial barriers to harming the public good).

    In order to be wise stewards of the gift of self-government in a constitutional republic, we not only have to understand what our theology teaches us about our obligations to the wider community of human persons, but we also have to understand both the nature of our government and its politics. We have to be, in the words of Jesus, “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16 NIV).

    You can read the entire article here: http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/WiseAsSerpents.html

  45. Jeff said

    Just to clarify – everything in the previous post came from the source. I am not condoning moral relativism – just providing the definition that Aaron asked for. 🙂

  46. John said

    Did I touch a nerve[smile]?
    To Quinn: To me, yes, killing or any kind qualifies as murder.That’s MY moral relativism.I’ve already seen the video you recommended.
    To Brian:You misunderstand me.And I couldn’t care less about it[more smiling].

  47. Bingo, Jeff. Thank you.

    Now, would someone care to explain to me how Greg Koukl, when he says that all Christians everywhere have an objective moral obligation to act in such a way as to produce the greatest good, is being a moral relativist? Like I said, perhaps he’s got his objective morality wrong – maybe there is a greater moral imperative that would apply here. You can argue that. Maybe he’s wrong in his assessment of the efficacy of his recommendation (voting for Guliani as the lesser of two evils) in achieving the moral outcome (preserving the loss of innocent life through abortion) – maybe there is no greater chance of conservative, even prolife judges being appointed to the Supreme court with Guliani as president vs. Hillary. You can argue that, too. But it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to make him say something he’s not, and the last thing he’s saying is that the moral rules that apply to this decision are relative.

  48. Anonymous said

    I think Aaron is giving good advice. If we want our opinions to be taken seriously, we must learn to construct coherent arguments. Too often Christians are guilty of throwing out far more heat than light. Inflaming the debate with ad hominem attacks and misunderstanding the meaning of moral relativism only make us look uninformed. I am not saying that I side with Koukl. I am only trying to plead for more sound argumentation.

  49. Elias said

    Here’s what i see in this.

    We have a ton of people saying that voting for Giuliani is wrong because he’s pro-choice.

    Voting for Hitler over Stalin would be wrong because it’s morally relativistic.

    That we need to do “the right thing” no matter what the consequenses.

    Here’s the question: What’s The Right Thing?

    It’s been said that voting for the lesser of 2 evils (the greater of goods) is relativistic, though this is never explained. To say that one choice is better then another means that you are comparing the two against some third, unspoken, factor, ie. how can one be ‘greater’ if there is no thing that is the ‘greatest’. If there is no objective morals then neither choice is greater then the other, and we fall into relativism. However, choosing the lesser of evils or greater of goods are both choices that need an objective standard by which to measure the two choices and to decide which will bring about the greater good, or the less evil.

    So, i put the choice in more real terms. If the election comes down to Giuliani and Clinton, who will you vote for? And let’s not even try to say that you won’t vote, or if we go down that road, let’s put a check mark right behind Hillary’s name, given that a vote for third party candidate (who has a snowballs chance in a bad place to win) is essentially a vote for Hillary, given her visibility and polarity among most voters. By not voting, you’re voting for Hillary. By voting for Hillary, you’re voting for complete lack of pro-life values and supreme court judges that pander to Moveon.org and the daily kos, as well as upholding and even solidifying Roe v Wade.

    On the other hand, we have Giuliani, who has on multiple occations said that he will appoint strict constructionist judges to the court. Given that most constructionists believe RvW is unconstitutional, this is a good thing for pro-life.

    A point of clarification, the President CANNOT impose his will upon the Court. The Court trumps the President. So, all of you saying that Bush should just wave his magic wand and make abortion go away, go back to American Politics 101 and realize that that’s not how our system works. The president can’t even impart his will upon state courts, he is hands off on that part of the system (the way the founding fathers wanted it) and since RvW is on the books, he has no choice but to follow it. A President being unable to change laws makes sure that he is not above the law. You do not want to have one man be able to re-write the law at his will, and if you question that, feel free to move to Cuba. You’ll feel more at home.

    So, who’s it going to be? The obvious Evil (Hillary) or the lesser of the two (Giuliani)?

    Quite frankly, if it comes down between those to, my money’s on Giuliani because getting citizenship to another country while Hillary’s in office and the after effects of the judges that she puts into play will drive me away from America.

    Any choice other then this is naivity of the worst kind.

    Don’t like Giuliani? Fine, find another candidate that has a chance and put all your backing behind him. I suggest Mitt Romney. A man who once was pro-choice but was pursuaded by powerful arguments firmly into the pro-life camp. And don’t even try to bring the Mormon issue into it – not for religious test or Article 6 issues, but because you all put so much weight on the Pro-Life issue as to ignore all others. If what’s been said is true, that being pro-life is the Most Important Thing in this race, then Romney is the obvious choice. To bring mormonism into it at that point is bigotry, pure and simple.

  50. Mike Sears said

    The Right thing is a vote for Mike Huckabee!! He is a candidate who is very clear on the issues. I like his responses in his debates. Check out the matrix on this “liberal” news website. It’s actually a pretty good summary of where each candidate stands on the issues. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21116732

  51. Hal said

    Christians and nonChristians alike should not vote for a candidate soley on one position and thereby overlooking other moral, ethical and scriptural issues. A candidate may claim to be prolife on the one hand, and yet a murdering innocent people in other ways and go against God’s Word. There is no perfect candidate and we do not live in a perfect society by any means.

  52. John said

    There are no perfect people.Only perfect intentions.Perfection is a relative ideal anyway[sigh…….].A perfect society.Ever read the story “The Giver”? Or “Brave New World”?

  53. Jeff said

    Mike Huckabee – I agree. I’m leaning toward him at this point.

    It is interesting that defining moral relativism seems to have killed this discussion.

    I pray that we get a pro-life president, but I pray more that the church will experience true revival!

  54. Elias said

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWYwMzg3MzZkNDBmYzJhMGY5OTY5MjI3YTYxYzFkNDE=

    James Bopp, the legal council for National Right to Life, who has spent his life defending life to presidents, congress and served on councils defending the same subject has endorsed Mitt Romney.

  55. Scott Mullins said

    How about Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy…if this doesn’t wake up “Christians”, I don’t know what will. How about Don Wildmon of the AFA endorsing a man that didn’t want to follow the laws of the land while he was Gov., Huckabee. We Christians in this country are lazy and the problem we have is no further than looking into the mirror. Many people here I’m sure voted for our current President twice, probably in 2000 and 2004 and what has this man done for our country? Nothing. Proverbs says, “The borrower is slave to the lender”, the United States is over $9 trillion in debt, who is going to pay these bills? We are slaves to countries like China. We can’t pay our bills! There is one question that should be asked of the candidates running for president, “Will you fulfill and uphold your oath of office to the Constitution”.

  56. John said

    Good luck trying to get a truthful answer.You know it’s never until AFTER the person’s in control that we [maybe] find out what they’re really all about.

  57. John said

    Good luck trying to get a straight,honest answer.

  58. Brad said

    Alright Scott Mullins, who would YOU have voted for in the last 2 Presidential elections, that would have done a better job, and why? Who would you vote for next year for President, who has all the values you speak of, and why?

  59. Scott Mullins said

    “All the values” I speak of are the Constitution. It won’t matter if the next candidate is against abortion or not, if this nation can’t pay its bills. While the Christians here are saying you should “never” vote for someone that is for abortion, how many here actually have gone out and tried to protest at an abortion clinic? Or said they would adopt children to stop an abortion…probably very few. I’m looking at the records of the candidates running, not their words. Records are more important than words. We seem to want an “American Idol” for President, why don’t we turn off the television and actually visit the candidates websites, pick up the phones and call their campaign HQ and ask them questions, etc., we know what we do about the candidates from what the media tells us, that is a horrendous!

  60. Elias said

    Interesting answer, but you didn’t answer any of the questions.

  61. Scott Mullins said

    Sure I did Elias, if you research the candidates, I think you will find your answer. Records, not words.

  62. Elias said

    who would YOU have voted for in the last 2 Presidential elections, that would have done a better job, and why?

    Who would you vote for next year for President, who has all the values you speak of, and why?

    For the record, neither of these two questions where answered.

    Point of clarification, aren’t records made up of words?

  63. Scott Mullins said

    Elias,
    Maybe the answer is not to vote. Maybe a vote for a 3rd party in 2000/2004 would have been the answer, but again, instead of being “spoon fed” and taking it like babies from the media, why don’t we do our own research?

    You are correct, words do make up records, as do votes. But when I say “records, not words”, I’m meaning how the person voted/spoke in the past, BEFORE they were running for President. It amazes me that somebody like Mike Huckabee has gotten as far as he has, but if you look at his record on taxes and illegals, start holding your nose, it stinks. Plus, from a man that is “vying” for the “Christian right” vote, I’m not seeing what is attracting them to this man…it makes no sense to me.

    As of who I am supporting, like I said, it’s one issue for me, the Constitution. Follow the Constitution and you will find who I am supporting.

  64. Anonymous said

    Still didn’t answer the question dude. Just a lot of hot air.

  65. Elias said

    I’m glad i’m not the only one that’s noticed.

  66. Scott Mullins said

    Anonymous and Elias,
    If by me saying “follow the Constitution and you will find who I am supporting” and you don’t know, that shows me you haven’t researched the candidates. I answered the question, but with an answer that should cause you to actually research the candidates if you haven’t…if you have, then you know the candidate I support.

  67. Anonymous said

    You’d be a great politician. Your answers have no more content than Hillary Clinton’s.

  68. Scott Mullins said

    Anonymous,

    Stop trolling and start researching! I have answered all the questions, you just aren’t happy because you don’t want to research.

  69. Joe said

    Here’s how Aaron Snell characterized Greg Koukl’s position in this debate:

    And here are the apostle Paul’s comments on this same issue:

    I understand that much of the conversation here revolves around whether it is accurate or appropriate to refer to Greg’s perspective as “moral relativism.” However I find it more to the point to ask whether it is moral to do evil that good may come. It seems Greg’s answer is sometimes. And that it depends upon an analysis of the degrees of evil likely to result from competing alternatives within a fixed set. In other words, to determine whether this decision is moral you must consider it relative to the alternatives. Now, I understand this may not comply with a rigid textbook definition of the philosophical term moral relativism. However most people without an understanding of the discipline of philosophy would agree that the phrase moral relativism is a fair description of Greg’s position.

    -Joe

  70. Joe said

    Here’s how Aaron Snell characterized Greg Koukl’s position in this debate:
    “Christians have an objective moral obligation to, by choosing the lesser of two evils, act in such a way as to produce the greatest moral good”

    And here are the apostle Paul’s comments on this same issue:
    “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”. -Rom 3:8

    I understand that much of the conversation here revolves around whether it is accurate or appropriate to refer to Greg’s perspective as “moral relativism.” However I find it more to the point to ask whether it is moral to do evil that good may come. It seems Greg’s answer is sometimes. And that it depends upon an analysis of the degrees of evil likely to result from competing alternatives within a fixed set. In other words, to determine whether this decision is moral you must consider it relative to the alternatives. Now, I understand this may not comply with a rigid textbook definition of the philosophical term moral relativism. However most people without an understanding of the discipline of philosophy would agree that the phrase moral relativism is a fair description of Greg’s position.

    -Joe

  71. Hi Joe,

    I appreciate your concern, but your characterization seems to ignore moral dilemmas. For example, do you think lying is wrong?

  72. world family travel…

    […]Should a Christian ever vote for a pro-abortion candidate? « Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com![…]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: