John, mainly out of curiosity, do you hold that Christians must always vote for the lesser of two evils, or do you think there comes a time when abstaining is the best--or perhaps the only--option for the Christian?

Just for the sake of discussion, I'll propose an extreme case: Suppose the USSR had free elections, and the options were Lenin and Stalin.

I've always been under the belief that American's don't have a right to vote - they have an obligation to vote - and if that means choosing between the lesser of two evils or a even placing a vote for an unlikely third party - you've done your job.

And besides that - I try not to look at it as choosing between the lesser of two evils - rather choosing the one who has the best qualifications and views for the job - regardless of how "evil" I feel they are.

John, as you either knew or correctly guessed, I have been heavily involved in politics, as high as running county-wide campaigns and in the inner circle of a (successful) campaign for federal office. I've seen things that would horrify many Christians, including one time when a candidate offered to hire me as campaign staff with part of my job responsibilities being to tell him how to talk religious evangelical jargon to convince Christians that he was one of them.

With all due respect to those who feel differently, my position is that I will not vote for someone who I do not believe is qualified to hold the office. Occasionally this means that I do not vote either way.

"And worse, if they vote for the Democrat in protest, that almost guarantees a Democrat victory."

Sounds like a good plan to me! LOL!

Dean

Actually, John, I believe that the answer to your basic question is staring you right in the face, but is too troubling to be realized and acknowledged by most Christians.

The non-evangelical world looks at the present actions of national church leaders and assumes that their motivations are what they appear to be - that they have (for years now since the days of the Moral Majority) demanded that the Republican Party jump through their hoops and put forth candidates that they approve of - as a condition for them not throwing a monkey wrench into the works.

The evangelical Christian views their actions and rationalizes that things are not what they appear to be (the tail demanding the right to wag the dog) while the world clearly understands that "power" is the basic motivation of some of those who have risen to prominence withn the Church.

It is generally conceded that George Herbert Walker Bush lost the 1992 election due to the splitting of the Republican vote by Ross Perot.

Then, in 1996, the "religious leaders" influenced many Christians to vote for 3rd party candidate Alan Keyes, only because they did not like the stance of Bob Dole's running mate, Jack Kemp. They argued that they had to act according to the dictates of "their principles and their consciences", even though many pointed out that their support of Keyes would cause a Clinton win over Dole (which it did) and this would result in the ability of Clinton to continue to support abortion rights.

Their issue of "conscience" was due to their stand against abortion - yet their actions resulted in a later Clinton veto on legislation on the restriction of partial birth abortion - a bill that Bob Dole would have signed.

So, to "vote their conscience" against a vice presidential candidate they felt was "soft" on Right to Life issues, they were responsible for actions that resulted in the killing of more innocent babies - the very activity they were pledging to stop.

When this was pointed out to them, their cavalier response was that they were not responsible for the consequences of their decisions - just their decisions.

How pathetic.

Now, they're doing it again. Recently, Sean Hannity pleaded earnestly with one of our very top religious leaders to not influence people to vote in such a way that was sure to put either Obama or Hillary in the White House.

This top religious leader, heard daily on most Christian radio stations nationwide, said the following (a direct quote) in regard to his then-stance against Rudy Giuiliani:

"If Rudy Giuiliani wins, I'm telling you - the pro-life and pro-family movement is gone. If it's Hillary, as bad as she is, there will be a mobilization to fight what she has tried to do. If he is put in office by conservatives and by those who are pro-life and pro-marriage and pro-family, I'm afraid we will never recover from it."

So there you have it. It is NOT about seeing that one more baby does not die. It is first and foremost THE PRESERVATION OF THE MOVEMENT THAT THIS DOCTOR IS ASSOCIATED WITH. After that, the reduction of abortions comes into play. If more babies have to die in order for us to preserve the future of the MOVEMENT, it is the price we need to pay.

Worse than pathetic. Heretical, at best.

The world clearly understands that the motive is power for power's sake, while the gullible, yet conscientious, Christian looks for the deeper meaning and - trusting in his leaders - tries to "understand" how these leaders must "honor their consciences and stand by their principles" - to maintain their "spiritual integrity".

I believe whet the world believes - that these men demand that the Republican Party do what they say and will even cost them the election if their exercise of power and preservation of their t"movements: is not stroked.

It is not first and foremost about the saving of babies with these guys - it probably never was. It is about their lust for power - and their attempt to exercise it at the cost of the unborn.

If not true, they would make decisions that would result in the saving of babies - not suggesting that 4 years of Hillary might be better for their "movement" - especially when 5 or 6 Supreme Court Justices are now over the age of 70 - and some could be replaced in the next 4 years.

Let's not be gullible, as Christians.

Cliff Cerce
The Cerces, PO Box 8525, Springfield, MO 65801
417-863-8440
http://www.thecerces.com