What's in the News, and Who Should Lose

* What's In The News, and Who Should Lose: First Bob discusses the headlines:
- European Commission wants to create another European tax despite the fact that stress is a killer
- Striking French workers hope that by working less that government will magically be able to fund irresponsible pension promises
- Gallup says that 10% of U.S. unemployed, and this follows news that 41% are born out of wedlock, and 42 million Americans are on food stamps
- UFOs over Richmond, Virginia are NOT alien ships, which have never been observed entering Earth's atmosphere, etc.

* Buck's Bottomless Abyss
: Christians should never put in office politicians like Ken Buck who admit that they will confirm pro-choice judges who will kill countless unborn children. Rather, we should make all moral decisions based on God's standards, including:
- Do not kill the innocent
- Obey God rather than man
- Do not do evil that good may come of it.

* Don't Replace God's Standards with Man's Standards: Regardless of the justification, all of men's standards are designed to get you to disobey God's standards. Man's standards include:
- It's a two-party system, you gotta vote for one of them
- You can't throw away your vote
- You gotta vote for the lesser of two evils (which means that if Obama's 2012 opponent is worse than him, you'd vote for Obama).

* If a Pro-lifer Refuses to Vote Doesn't He Make it Easier for a Pro-Abort Democrat to Win? That abyss has no bottom. Would you support Obama in two years if you judged that his Republican opponent was even worse? The above question assumes that there is no moral standard that makes it irrelevant. For example, if someone is robbing a bank to pay for an operation for his dying son, and you stop the robbery, and someone says, "Now this innocent child will die because of you. There were only two likely outcomes: the proceeds of this bank job would pay for the operation to spare this child; or he would die a terrible death. And look what you've done. How does your action not make it easier for this disease to tear apart this child's body? Do you realize the horror that you are now responsible for? This could have been prevented if it were not for your holier-than-thou attitude and actions."

That abyss has no bottom.

But you say what? How do you justify intervening with the result that that the innocent child dies? The fact that the innocent child may or may not die is not relevant to the moral issue. The moral issue is: Do not steal. Does that sound cruel and uncaring and unsophisticated? Well, undermining Do not steal for some supposed benefit is sophistry and wrongheaded.

That abyss has no bottom.

How would Germans have viewed the above question?

German: "In my district, the Marxists are polling ahead of every other political party, so, even though I am a Christian, and I can see that the NAZIs want to kill the Jews, I judge (and history eventually proves correct) that the Marxists may end up killing more people than the NAZIs, so I am going to campaign for Hitler."

That abyss has no bottom.

German with biblical principle: God said Do not murder, and if I support a politician who acknowledges his past actions and ongoing plans to kill innocent people, I will be disobedient to God and responsible for the coming bloodshed. So, even though my nation is being torn in pieces, I will oppose the Marxists and the NAZIs, even though in my district they are the two parties that will share an absolute majority of the vote.

The principle contained in the above question is based on fear (of the alternative), and it functions via moral relativism (I am justified supporting my murderer because otherwise their murderer who is worse will gain power).

That abyss has no bottom.

The standard in the above question is not God's righteous command. Rather, it is based on impossible political calculations that end up justifying support even for murderers, even for the most horrific mass murderers, as long as we can be convinced of a greater impending alternative evil. Can't you see that?

That abyss has no bottom.

If someone argues that embryonic stem cell research has far greater promise than adult stem cells, and that will save millions of innocent children from torture and suffering and death: that argument (like yours) is Not relevant in the moral calculation of what course of action to persue. It's like comparing the rates of return in your family's retirement plan between a money market account, a certificate of deposit, or a gun pointed at the teller's head. The gun may far and away procure the best rate of return ($350 gun / $8,400 return in 24 hours). But the financial calculation is irrelevant; just like the medical research calculation is irrelevant when killing embryos as John McCain advocates; and just as the political calculation regarding Obama is irrelevant when considering the morality of supporting a mass murderer to lead a nation.

That abyss has no bottom.

* Join a Weekly Literature Drop for Colorado's Personhood Amendment 62! with Bob Enyart or arrange a weekly lit drop in your own town! See the details!

* Today’s Resource: You can enjoy one or two of Bob Enyart’s entertaining and insightful videos each month, mailed to you automatically, simply by subscribing to the BEL Monthly Topical Videos service! Also, you can check out the other great BEL subscription services!