SHOULD CHRISTIANS VOTE FOR THE “LESSER OF EVILS”? IF NOT, THEN WHO DO WE VOTE FOR?
By Don Cooper - Posted at WorldLife:
I just recently watched a video put up by Wretched.tv’s host Todd Friel which gives an analogy of a house on fire in which you must rescue people and you have to choose who is going to help you rescue people. This analogy is put forth to try and justify the logic that voting for the “lesser of evils” is how we should make our decision of who to vote for. In the analogy each of the choices you have of those who could help you are not perfect choices. They are all flawed in some manner. In the end Friel argues you simply pick the best of the group that you believe has a chance of being able to enter the burning house at all.
Friel’s analogy includes a crippled person who wants to save everyone in the house but is unable to even enter the house let alone carry people out. Friel then says that the crippled person is akin to the candidate who has perfect Christian values but “has no chance of being elected”. The conclusion from Friel is obviously that we “know” that it is either Hillary or Trump, no others have a chance, so pick the best one so you can do the most good with your vote. That is your Christian duty in Friel’s view.
To be fair, I used to think just like Todd Friel. But this is seriously flawed thinking and thank God there were people around me that persisted in showing me my error. Sadly, in today’s world, you can tell a story in a minute and half that promotes flawed thinking and it will take much longer than that to lay out a coherent, linear, sequence of logic, facts and biblical principle to rebut it. This is by no means all that could be brought against this “vote for the lesser of evils” approach, but I think it is sufficient.
Read more...
I just recently watched a video put up by Wretched.tv’s host Todd Friel which gives an analogy of a house on fire in which you must rescue people and you have to choose who is going to help you rescue people. This analogy is put forth to try and justify the logic that voting for the “lesser of evils” is how we should make our decision of who to vote for. In the analogy each of the choices you have of those who could help you are not perfect choices. They are all flawed in some manner. In the end Friel argues you simply pick the best of the group that you believe has a chance of being able to enter the burning house at all.
Friel’s analogy includes a crippled person who wants to save everyone in the house but is unable to even enter the house let alone carry people out. Friel then says that the crippled person is akin to the candidate who has perfect Christian values but “has no chance of being elected”. The conclusion from Friel is obviously that we “know” that it is either Hillary or Trump, no others have a chance, so pick the best one so you can do the most good with your vote. That is your Christian duty in Friel’s view.
To be fair, I used to think just like Todd Friel. But this is seriously flawed thinking and thank God there were people around me that persisted in showing me my error. Sadly, in today’s world, you can tell a story in a minute and half that promotes flawed thinking and it will take much longer than that to lay out a coherent, linear, sequence of logic, facts and biblical principle to rebut it. This is by no means all that could be brought against this “vote for the lesser of evils” approach, but I think it is sufficient.
Read more...
Comments
Post a Comment
Please feel free to comment, but profanity, anti-Christian or argumentative comments will not be published. Thank you, ed.