September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« Ehrman & Reliability | Main | Shvarts Art Puts Yale in a Tough Spot... »

April 21, 2008


I agree. Sometimes I only have someone to vote against. Maybe I will feel that way in November. I know I do right now. But even so, I think it is important.

I fear that I began to think like too many Americans - tired of the same old leftovers the Republican big-wigs feed us.

Bob Dole for President? Come on! I was annoyed when the name George Bush was being thrown around as a presidential candidate.

I had decided to be a no-show. The Christians in this country have turned their backs on God. Historically, He has always judged His children, and it's about time He did it again. Who cares if it's a muslim, a feminist or a foul-mouthed hot head that next occupies the White House?

God has changed my mind. I do not yet know for whom I will vote, but I will vote - and my one vote may well carry the election.

I never understood the seeming Christian backing for Bush. Many Christians seemingly voted for Bush because he claimed to be born-again and pro-life. Well, Gore claims to be a believer, and Kerry claims to be a Catholic. Yet, I can find nothing in any of these men's actions that I consider qualities to lead responsibly. All candidates will claim faith in Christ because it is expedient to do so; it is ultimately meaningless. If Bush is indeed a believer in Christ, in my opinion he has besmirched that faith publicly due to his irresponsible and ill-informed decisions while in office, namely the debacle that is Iraq.

While I disagree with Bill Maher on most issues, I am with him when he claims Bush is "a rube on the world stage."


I think some people have an obligation NOT to vote since they are unqualified. If a person doesn't know what the job of some office is, enough about the issues affecting that office to have an informed opinion about those issues, and whether each candidate is actually qualified for the job, then they shouldn't vote. If a person who is ignorant of these things votes anyway, their vote is just arbitrary.

It is good to know that Mr. Dobson is going to vote after all.
The idea of supporting McCain stinks.
Allot of things in life stink, like going to the doctor, but I would rather deal with the indignity of visiting the doctor then something like inoperable cancer. I would rather deal with McCain, then the other choices.

Sam, I agree that none of the people are qualified for the job, but our objections will not stop America from needing a President, one of those three people will be in office next year, are you sure you want to leave it totally up to others which one it is?

Wanda, I didn't mean that none of the people who were running for office were qualified for the job. I meant that not every person who is eligible to vote is qualified to vote.

I am sorry that I misread your post Sam. I should quit answering post before my first cup of coffee.

I'm not so sure about these supposed differences between the candidates. Roe could have been overturned a long time ago had Republicans merely appointed pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. But then, if Roe were overturned the most hard working people working to get Republican presidents elected would lose their enthusiasm. Do Republicans really want that? I think the smartest thing the Democrats could do would be to get Roe overturned and take away from Republicans the single issue that drives the base more than anything else. And the penalty is a mere democratic vote in the states to decide the issue. That's really not so bad.

McCain, as a supposed "moderate" should be expected to appoint pro-choice justices. Republicans half expect this from him, right? And conveniently the pro-life lobby can be expected to work very hard for the next Republican presidential candidate, right? Maybe next time. That's what we'll keep hearing.

It is good to know that Dobson has changed his mind. He does not have to say who he will vote for. 1. It probably goes without saying. But 2. Should he say this on his public airwaves he gets very close to that fine line that all Non-profits need to stear clear of, endorsing a candidate in his capacity as leader of Focus on the Family.

Thus, my concern was not that he was leaning toward not voting, but that his thoughts being made public would influence his listeners to make the same decision. He might never have said that he was encouraging his listeners against voting, but that was the potential result.

Many Christians follow his program and advice like many do with Oprah. Both would deny such influence, but if so why be on the radio/television at all? They both are trying to influence the public. To be sure, Dobson does not have the numerical following that Oprah has, so the comparison is weakened in that regard.

But the point is the same. People listen to what he says (even if he says he is speaking only for himself). Had he not voted and a large portion of his listeners followed suit, there would be an impact on the election.

My general concern for Christians is that we often do not think through issues but instead look for others to do that for us.

Glad to hear it. I've heard some Christians saying they are 'voting for Jesus', but as Jesus is not on the running, I am clueless as to what they mean. We have to do the best we can with the choices presented to us. After all, so many other places in the world have no choice at all.

JMHO, but grampa Dobson has as little influence on the electorate as Pat Robertson. Both had careers that stayed up well beyond bedtime.

Both good men, yet both well insulated from the real world lives of most Americans. Both with very, very comfy incomes.

Neither will have an influence on the outcome of the election. I respect them both and they have a right to speak whatever they want, but few will listen because of the disconnect of their privileged status.

I'm delighted that Dr. Dobson will vote. But to call it "a God-given responsibility" is a little over the top. Voting is an instrumental means by which one may shape the trajectory of one's community in the direction of the good. If a German citizen voted for Hitler, is he exercising his God-given responsibility?

Your responsibility is to do the good, which may mean in some cases abstaining from voting.

"Your responsibility is to do the good, which may mean in some cases abstaining from voting."

Francis, does that mean that you don't think of minimizing evil, through a vote for a lesser evil when no clear good is an option, is in itself a good? If so, what is your rationale for your position?


If the two candidates for office are both untenable (e.g., Hitler vs. Stalin), and there is not any clearly less-evil option, what then?

Would you ever abstain from voting under any circumstances?

thanks for sharing that point. I guess I would be forced to run against both then. I can see that voting is too narrow a way of looking at combating evil under certain very narrow circumstances. When faced with two evils, then we must look at other options such as rebellion against the evil if no other option is available. However, this should be the last resort. Given our present example, I think that my model of a lesser evil being available is more applicable than your theoretical example. I do appreciate your input, however.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. It is repugnant how anti-Christian and liberal McCain's voting record has been ( One thing that really got me thinking from another article - if McCain gets into office, most conservatives will generally let their guard down (not watching his every move as closely as with Hillary / Obama) - when based on his voting track record, he needs to be watched just as closely. He can potentially do more damage, and all under the auspices of being a "conservative". I will write in a presidential candidate at this point if I must, but I certainly understand Dobson's quandary.

it might be easier to understand his "quandary" then it is to understand why he doesn't opt to run himself on his own platform if he is so convinced that the options available do not meet with his approval. Faith should result in action to correct the problem. Talk is cheap. If Dobson wants a credible place in the political arena, perhaps he should put his actions where his mouth is. I suspect that in that case, actions would speak a lot louder than words.


If McCain is any "less evil" than the Dem candidates, I do not see it; I certainly do not foresee a President McCain doing less evil than a Democratic president.

Iraq is a furnace whether we stay or leave; immigration is a matter of politics more than justice or law. The economy will (eventually) recover. The biggest moral issue in America remains the abortion industry, the legal killing of millions of babies every year.

As far as I understand, there is no candidate who will do anything against the abortion industry. There are no such candidates in the running. In these circumstances, I'd rather not endorse someone for office whom I cannot endorse morally.

The comments to this entry are closed.