Over the course of my years of engaging in politics, I have often heard the phrase “the lesser of two evils” used about the choices offered up to voters. But never has that phrase been used more than in the 2016 election. One wonders if all the “lesser evil” choices of prior elections have ultimately culminated in the two worst choices of our lifetimes? Time will certainly tell.
As
I’ve witnessed the ongoing debate on the Republican side of the
discussion over Donald Trump, supposedly the lesser evil, I have seen
two arguments arise. The #NeverTrump side asserts that they must follow
their conscience, drawn from a biblical/absolute moral standard. The
other side argues that in doing so, one would invariably allow a greater
evil, in this case Hillary Clinton, to prevail in our nation. This
second group asserts that selecting the “lesser evil,” in this case
Trump, is a better choice, even a good choice, because it would lessen
or slow the advance of evil.
Let’s
assume, for the sake of argument, that under a Trump administration,
evil would in fact advance at a slower pace. If that were true, then is a
vote for someone who has a lifetime of the behavior below someone a
Christian should vote for, regardless of the evil character of the other
option?
No comments:
Post a Comment