harmonicminer

10 Responses to “HE Is The ONE”

1. the says:
   August 2nd, 2008 2:54 pm

   http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?p=81
2. harmonicminer says:
   August 2nd, 2008 8:54 pm

   The President of Fuller Theological Seminary says, regarding the choice between Obama and McCain, “I think I know which one I will vote for, but things could happen that could push me the other way.”

   I am intrigued. Does he mean events could happen unrelated to the candidates themselves? Does he mean he simply hasn’t done enough research to decide, so revelations could occur which will move him? Does he mean he thinks there is a chance that one of the candidates will change their (obvious) basic value structures?

   I cannot imagine any serious person who has bothered to inform themselves who has not made a firm decision by now. Yet he denies being in the “mushy middle”. Go figure.
3. the says:
   August 2nd, 2008 10:38 pm

   Maybe it has to do with the reality that neither candidate fully expresses firm commitments to evangelical values, etc, etc.

   Personally, I’m not convinced by either candidate… for all intents and purposes, I’ll still be wasting my vote on some third-party/write-in. As a blue-and-red disillusioned young person, I maintain my right and freedom to be—ineffective.

   Just like ’04.
4. harmonicminer says:
   August 2nd, 2008 11:15 pm

   Sorry… but that is a cop out. You have a choice to make. Pretending you don’t is the cowardly way out, chosen out of a misplaced sense of the nature of politics. If you don’t vote, or waste your vote, you’re simply being irresponsible, because you can’t bear to make a real choice. You’re going to have one or the other. Neither is perfect… but one is clearly better than the other, and far more closely aligned with traditional values than the other, even if not fully.

   You might want to check this out:

   http://store.pamphleteerpress.com/11.html
5. the says:
   August 3rd, 2008 8:59 am

   Thanks for the email, Phil. After I read that pamphlet, I will get back to you with more reasoned reasons. But first, a few knee-jerk reactions to what’s already been said…

   Let me understand you: so I should vote for the “lesser of two evils,” even when I’m convinced some other person would be better for the job? Sure, there’s no chance my yet-to-be-named horse would win the race. But is it really a cop out to stand for a conviction, guns blazing yet being ultimately futile? What happened to acting rightly when no one else is looking (and no one on this side of humanity will be, when I’m in that booth)?

   This is only my second presidential election, and my prior contribution was similarly a wasted vote. It is what it is, no bones about it. So in November certainly no candidate displayed on that ballot, certainly no write-in of whom I could conceive, certainly NO ONE will be perfect for this office—but I am convinced that at the expense of Barack and John, there has to be a better option—yet unfortunately, I do admit it’s just not a viable one.

   Say I vote for Ron Paul, either as a third-party candidate or a write-in. That choice—my choice—would perhaps be naive, futile, convicted, and reasoned (in my opinion, at least). But is it truly irresponsible? Is it really cowardice / motivated by fear?

   Naive? Sure…
   Cowardly? Hmmm…
6. harmonicminer says:
   August 3rd, 2008 2:30 pm

   Can it be “acting rightly” to make a futile gesture that has no chance of making the world slightly better? Why not go whole hog and write in the name of the Pope, or the Dalai Lama, or Billy Graham? It would be as useful, and about as sensible.

   One of the candidates IS better than the other, all things considered, from the perspectives of historic Christianity. Wasting your vote makes it more likely that the WORST candidate is elected. What, then, is your moral position when that candidate’s appointments and policies make the world worse than it might have been if the “lesser evil” candidate was elected?

   It may have seemed insulting to say it is cowardly to waste your vote. I don’t mean it to be. I am often motivated by fear, a perfectly useful response to dangerous circumstances. What is of interest here is what you may be afraid OF.

   And yes… I’m sad to say… I think you may be motivated by fear. Fear of voting for the less than perfect. Fear of having to acknowledge that you have to choose between available alternatives. Fear of feeling the frustration you WILL feel when the “lesser evil” candidate does things you don’t like, and you have to admit you voted for him. Fear of admitting that the world will NEVER be what you wish it could be, and fear of somehow losing yourself if you admit that and begin making “lesser evil” choices. It is simply a fact that NO candidate has EVER been perfect.

   It is a fact that for any candidate that ever stood for any election, there was someone else around who would have been a better choice, if there had been any chance of that person being elected. I include George Washington and Abe Lincoln in that list. I’m not saying I know just who those possible candidates WERE, just there were almost certainly people who would have made the same correct judgments the very best made, but with perhaps fewer errors, judged in the hindsight of history. Abe Lincoln waited WAY too long to appoint a general who would fight aggressively and win. That error cost tens or hundreds of thousands of lives in a needlessly prolonged war. But would it have been a responsible choice for an anti-slavery voter of the day to refrain from voting for Abe because he was less than perfect?

   At bottom, I think you have to have the faith that our system works, that liberal democracy has built-in correctives, and make the most responsible choice you can make AMONG THE AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES. Anything else is a cop out.

   I’ll make it as clear as I can: Obama WILL appoint judges who uphold Roe v. Wade, who will degrade our national ability to fight terrorists, who will uphold gay marriage rulings, and who will uphold free speech restrictions favored by the left. They will be confirmed. They will be young, and on the bench a long time. And states that would have restricted abortion will not be able to do that. More babies will be aborted if Obama is appointed. It really is that simple.

   I am not naive. I know some states will continue to have liberal abortion laws. I know some people will go out of state to get those abortions. But not all. If you think no lives will be saved by a repeal of Roe v. Wade, then YOU are the naive one.

   There is not a chance that a repeal of Roe v. Wade will happen under Obama. There is a chance it will happen under McCain. A vote for Obama (which is the effect of wasting your vote) is literally a vote for the utterly unjust AND unnecessary death of the least powerful among us. Exactly which “little ones” do you think Jesus had in mind?

   The defense rests… for now.
7. the says:
   August 8th, 2008 12:15 pm

   Sorry, Shack. I guess you and I simply have differing views on what my rights are. What is apparently unconscionable for you is not so for me, and vice versa.

   While I’m anti-Obama, I am only so—to the point of my conscience. In other words, I won’t vote for someone (McCain) just because I don’t like the other “viable alternative” (Obama) and need someone else’s horse to win the race for me. Again, my naive understanding of politics just won’t let me do so. If I don’t buy what McCain is selling, and if I don’t buy the keep-Barack-from-the-White-House-at-all-costs routine, then in all likelihood I will vote for a third party / write-in.

   You have gone a long way in all your blogging to prove the second “if” (i.e., bar Barack) …I guess I’m not quite sold yet. Blame it on that whole unconscionable-for-you-but-not-for-me dance you and I seem to be having.
8. harmonicminer says:
   August 8th, 2008 10:56 pm

   I suppose in the end it depends on what you think voting is. I see it as making a choice between available alternatives, not a secret (or for that matter public) act of piety. I’m afraid you tend towards the act of piety viewpoint. I tend not to confuse when I’m doing something that might actually make a realistic difference, even quite a small one, and when I’m doing something that is purely to make a statement.

   Trust me: it would be hard for you to be more frustrated with some of McCain’s past and present positions on some issues than I am. But I consider it my sacred duty to do whatever I can to prevent the bad things that will happen if Obama is elected, and to encourage what few good things might happen if McCain is elected. You don’t seem to feel that sense of duty. You seem to prefer to make a statement of ideological purity.

   Maybe you should blog to present your ideology, and vote to maximize the possibility of a less negative outcome.

   Sidebar: Please understand, I consider the two party system to be an enormous compromise, and like the idea of people challenging it when they can. But the time to do that is in the PRIMARIES, when a successful third party candidate can prove viability, not in the GENERAL election, when we know who the possible winners are.
9. Tom Hunt says:
   August 14th, 2008 11:41 pm

   Someone once said “We have a choice between a Democrat (McCain) and a Socialist (Obama). Voting is like choosing between hitting your thumb with a hammer once or twice.”
10. harmonicminer » THE ONE says:
    September 2nd, 2008 9:56 am

    […] being THE ONE and everything, do you ever find yourself wondering if there any Obamas left in the alternate […]