This, the title of a very good book by author Josh McDowell. First released in 1972, the book deals with the subject of Christian apologetics and it was written to help Christians defend their faith in everything from casual conversation to doctoral dissertations. I think the book has been updated since it’s first date of publication and is still a very credible source related to the historical evidence of the Christian faith.
If I may I’d like to borrow this book title as a challenge and a plea to voters. A volume of credible and verifiable evidence now exists relating to both major candidates for president. Though there have been various attempts to mask and otherwise obfuscate the histories and governance philosophies of both men, there is now no excuse. It is not a difficult task to investigate the candidates, to learn about their past, their plans, their guiding principles, their hopes and desires, their successes and their failures. The evidence is plentiful.
All this evidence is meaningless, however, if it is not taken into account when deciding a verdict. Just as a jury should never convict a defendant without examination of the evidence, I believe a voter should never cast a ballot without a thorough examination of the candidates. Just as criminal conviction of a defendant based on their race would be a terrible injustice, so would election of an African American to the highest office in the land without examination of that person’s resume’. Just as a defendant is innocent until proven guilty a political candidate must be given the benefit of the doubt about the veracity of their statements until such time as the reliability of those statements can be verified – and they MUST be verified.
Now the prosecution and defense of both candidates is about to rest. You, the voter are the jury, and your vote is your finding, your final judgment. What will be the basis on which you cast your vote? Age? Dress? Speaking ability? Eloquence? Skin color? Warm fuzzy feelings? A simple belief in the candidate? Or will it be based on examination of the evidence? Evidence that does indeed demand a verdict.
If you cannot be bothered to examine the evidence then you have no business voting any more than you would to serve on a jury. If you have not and will not examine the evidence then maybe you should sit this one out. Consider yourself recused. The stakes are too high and the possible wrong verdict could punish ALL of us for a very long time.
