If we fail to use that tool, however, and as a result the person who gets elected is far worse and does far more damage than the other person we did not like, then we still share responsibility for the damage that will be done.
How does one measure the damage that a particular candidate might do, which would require the extraordinary measure of voting against him/her? For example - abortion is evil, but so is war. Neither happens in a vacuum, which means that there are deathly consequences to either of them which cannot be foreseen. As evil as abortion is, it may well be that remaining engaged in war will cause as much or more death in the long run, generationally speaking, because war begets violence which begets more war. And by death, I mean not just physical death, but spiritual death worldwide, inasmuch as we do not "let our light shine before men."
One set of candidates stands in favor of abortion and against war, and the other set is vice versa. So whom should one choose?
As the post you refer to says, "we have to shift our thinking and focus on 'better' rather than 'best.'" But does this mean we are reduced to trying to precognitively decide who is going to allow or cause fewer deaths? If so, it is small wonder people want to sit out.
Nevertheless, I agree with the general premise. I believe that a person who weighs the good versus the bad, prays earnestly over their choice, and ultimately allows their God-given and God-guided conscience to lead them has automatically done the right thing, even if he arrives at a different conclusion than I did. However, it is the very abdication of one's responsibility to make a choice that is the sin.
Tim --
That was a very thoughtful post. God bless you.
Commenting by HaloScan
