Ontological Argument: Rebuttal
First off, I'll state here that I am in disagreement with Ehud's evaluation as to how we ought to vote. And second, as one who has and will vote for the candidate I believe to be the best for the job, I can say that this is not something I find as "the principle of the thing" to satisfy my "guilt-ridden conscience" for my "self-gratification." Ehud goes a little too far in making a characterization of people's hearts by the usage of his words.
I am actually surprised with Ehud's post since only a few days before, he quotes George Washington. In fact, it's ironic. Why is it that the principles of George Washington to stand firm against tyranny does not apply here in the arena of politics, way before such bloodshed could come to the fore? Ehud says:
Is it better to cast vote for a thoroughly Christian candidate who, under current circumstances, will never win or for the pseudo-Christian moralist who could actually win, thus bringing about at least some of our goals?
...if a Believer foregoes the opportunity to do some small amount of real good in deference to a statement of mere conceptual good, he ought then to feel guilty.
So "some of our goals" accomplished by the pseudo-Christian would be "some small amount of real good." True, but since when should the Christian be begging for scraps at the table of (lesser) evil? And how long does that "real good" last when Christians are voting only for the "lesser evil"? And what assurance do Christians have that the "real good" will not be undermined or overwhelmed by the "real bad"?
Is Ehud being short-sighted? Maybe, maybe not. If he tows the incrementalist line, then he believes that doing some of the "real good" now would incrementally build more "real good" later. If it were really the case, one would have to wonder how we got to such a dismal situation with our government. After all, was not our nation and government founded and built upon Christian principles? But evil is like leaven, and eventually, small "real good" favors get swallowed up.
The parallel to Ehud's approach is that of constantly trying to address the urgent needs, all the while postponing the emergency need. Sure, we can steer out of the way of the rocks, but we're still heading for the waterfall. If doom is inevitable (sorry, my pessimism is showing), then perhaps its time to turn the boat around and give it all you got.
The only "real good" I can see coming from Ehud's POV is that tyranny is slowed down. Not stopped, but slowed. Perhaps he sees nothing but a collapse of our form of government. It is, after all, part of the historical cycle of democracy. So while the government sinks down, we might as well get what we can from it. *shrugs*
I, myself, see our nation and government going the way of the Tidy Bowl man. Tyranny-saurus Rex is getting bigger and is the new lion in the Colosseum. Applying Ehud's way of voting, it can be slowed, but not stopped. But what of my way of voting? Is it any better?
In the short-term, no. Ehud is right in saying that the Christian candidate cannot win. Those of us who vote for them are few in number (how sad is that?). By voting in this way, we shun the table scraps from the table of evil. Instead, we starve. Tyranny is not slowed and we are devoured in the process.
But in the long-term, if we are consistent to pass along to our children the way we vote, then there is victory on the horizon. This is a "real goal" that can be achieved, but this cannot happen if Christians give in to voting for table scraps, and then pass this type of philosophy onto their children.
I'm not saying that the "real good" scraps aren't important, so don't get me wrong there. What I am saying is that when one looks at the big picture in the political scheme, evil is either ratcheted fast or ratcheted slow. In the long run, "real good" becomes a "conceptual good" to the powermongering government leviathan.
Lastly, Christians DO believe that a "thoroughly Christian candidate" can and do win in the real world. In other words, they vote like I would. The problem is that mainstream Christianity is so antinomian, they really don't know what a "thoroughly Christian candidate" looks like. But that is their blindness, not mine. Following Ehud's line of reasoning, am I now to follow after the blind and into their folly? We are sheep, that is true, but let's not follow our brethren because they lead in numbers.
Ehud's quote of George Washington is more appropriate in its philosophy against tyranny than his ontological argument. If I am going to go down fighting against tyranny, it'll be with lead...pencil first before the bullet.
I am actually surprised with Ehud's post since only a few days before, he quotes George Washington. In fact, it's ironic. Why is it that the principles of George Washington to stand firm against tyranny does not apply here in the arena of politics, way before such bloodshed could come to the fore? Ehud says:
Is it better to cast vote for a thoroughly Christian candidate who, under current circumstances, will never win or for the pseudo-Christian moralist who could actually win, thus bringing about at least some of our goals?
...if a Believer foregoes the opportunity to do some small amount of real good in deference to a statement of mere conceptual good, he ought then to feel guilty.
So "some of our goals" accomplished by the pseudo-Christian would be "some small amount of real good." True, but since when should the Christian be begging for scraps at the table of (lesser) evil? And how long does that "real good" last when Christians are voting only for the "lesser evil"? And what assurance do Christians have that the "real good" will not be undermined or overwhelmed by the "real bad"?
Is Ehud being short-sighted? Maybe, maybe not. If he tows the incrementalist line, then he believes that doing some of the "real good" now would incrementally build more "real good" later. If it were really the case, one would have to wonder how we got to such a dismal situation with our government. After all, was not our nation and government founded and built upon Christian principles? But evil is like leaven, and eventually, small "real good" favors get swallowed up.
The parallel to Ehud's approach is that of constantly trying to address the urgent needs, all the while postponing the emergency need. Sure, we can steer out of the way of the rocks, but we're still heading for the waterfall. If doom is inevitable (sorry, my pessimism is showing), then perhaps its time to turn the boat around and give it all you got.
The only "real good" I can see coming from Ehud's POV is that tyranny is slowed down. Not stopped, but slowed. Perhaps he sees nothing but a collapse of our form of government. It is, after all, part of the historical cycle of democracy. So while the government sinks down, we might as well get what we can from it. *shrugs*
I, myself, see our nation and government going the way of the Tidy Bowl man. Tyranny-saurus Rex is getting bigger and is the new lion in the Colosseum. Applying Ehud's way of voting, it can be slowed, but not stopped. But what of my way of voting? Is it any better?
In the short-term, no. Ehud is right in saying that the Christian candidate cannot win. Those of us who vote for them are few in number (how sad is that?). By voting in this way, we shun the table scraps from the table of evil. Instead, we starve. Tyranny is not slowed and we are devoured in the process.
But in the long-term, if we are consistent to pass along to our children the way we vote, then there is victory on the horizon. This is a "real goal" that can be achieved, but this cannot happen if Christians give in to voting for table scraps, and then pass this type of philosophy onto their children.
I'm not saying that the "real good" scraps aren't important, so don't get me wrong there. What I am saying is that when one looks at the big picture in the political scheme, evil is either ratcheted fast or ratcheted slow. In the long run, "real good" becomes a "conceptual good" to the powermongering government leviathan.
Lastly, Christians DO believe that a "thoroughly Christian candidate" can and do win in the real world. In other words, they vote like I would. The problem is that mainstream Christianity is so antinomian, they really don't know what a "thoroughly Christian candidate" looks like. But that is their blindness, not mine. Following Ehud's line of reasoning, am I now to follow after the blind and into their folly? We are sheep, that is true, but let's not follow our brethren because they lead in numbers.
Ehud's quote of George Washington is more appropriate in its philosophy against tyranny than his ontological argument. If I am going to go down fighting against tyranny, it'll be with lead...pencil first before the bullet.
posted by Soli Deo Gloria | 11/06/2006 11:06:00 PM
14 Comments:
Well met Sir. Seeing as how I’m of the minority opinion amongst my friends on this one, I expected some response.
First, let me say that I still agree with the sentiments of the Washington quote cited but I don’t think the Const. Pty. does. Y’see, the whole issue which I have with them is that they are non-committal in their position—I know that sounds backward but hear me out on this: They’re straddling the Dominion argument fence by siding with Rushdoony’s grassroots Christian-populism approach (through state elections) on the one hand, and North’s revolutionary approach (with “protest votes”), ensuring a greater marginalization of Christian polity on the other.
But the Reconstructionist polarization is just a rehash of the running argument between Calvin and Knox. Whichever side of this issue we come down on, we must commit ourselves to it. But the Const. pty. content themselves to be summer and winter at the same time. The result? Effective disenfranchisement. They’ve ghetto-ized themselves.
A cogent theory of Christian resistance, which is what I take them to be aiming at, is pursued either by working through the existing system (Rep. pty.) or by overthrowing the establishment altogether. The Calvininian view of this is that such supplantation must be done only on the basis of Christian order with the appropriately vested jurisdiction. (Judge Roy Moore comes to mind) Unless the Const. pty. is willing to accept the mantle and moniker of a “reorganized American govt.”, they don’t qualify. No matter how noble the cause, the 1860’s stand as a testimonial of how the Fed looks on competitive governments staking claim.
The facts are that with one foot in the system, as a third party, they render the Christian vote ineffectual; and with the other outside the system, by way of “protest votes”, they again render themselves’ impotent. They claim both sides but can work effectively in neither. They aren’t a separate, competing government, nor are they likely candidates for election. At best, they’re a decent publishing house.
In summation, a vote for the Const. pty. is a vote of “no confidence” (not necessarily wrong) in our current government, but until they make up their minds as to what their goals are and pursue accordingly I cannot take them seriously as a political option. Their continuance in present form does nothing but aid the “greater of two evils”—that is, the Trotskyite Democrats.
…but if you hear any talk of a decision in favor of the Knox-North perspective on their part you’ll have my attention again.
Interesting stuff there, but yet, it does not address the philosophy you have put forth. Just because the Constitution Party is confused, it does not negate them from being the better candidate. Furthermore, even if they were to take the Knox-North perspective, what guarantee is there that the Christian candidate would now have a "real world" chance of defeating the pseudo-Christian? Would you start voting Constitution Party because they would no longer be confused or because they have a chance of winning?
Is it better to vote for the candidate who deceives (pseudo-Christian) or the candidate who is confused (Constitution Party)?
Let's consider the election here in California. I didn't see anyone in the Constitution Party on the ballot. Was there a "more together" third party on the ballot who was better than either the Repubs and Demos? Do they actually have a chance at winning? If not, should we have voted for them anyway?
As much as I don't like the greater evil to be in office, ultimately it does us no good to always be avoiding evil by acquiescing to it, even if it is relatively less. Who knows? Eventually, the evil may be so great in our government that we may no longer get to vote. After all, isn't the Constitution "just a $*@?#%! piece of paper"?
While I still can, I'd rather aim my vote for the best candidate, and pass that philosophy along to my children.
It sounds as if you’re saying that Frodo failed and Bush has the Ring. Perhaps, but be that as it may, if we are to take part in Civics at all, it must be in a meaningful way. And as much as I may sympathize with their desire to vote for their preferred candidates, I can’t consider their approach to be meaningful as such.
I believe the Ontological line of thought holds because in the case of a vote cast for the thoroughly pro-life candidate (Const. Pty.) one may, no, WILL aid the ravenous pro-abortion lobby (Dem. Pty.) in their agenda. No one can rationally claim the moral high ground upon such a premise. I take the preservation of innocent life to be one of the “weightier matters of the Law.” With that in mind, we must interact with the state of affairs as they are, not as we’d like them to be.
As I’ve previously stated, inorder for them to be relevant (not in the PC sense mind you) they must take part in the current system in such a way that they have a chance of bringing about Christian goals. They must atleast resolve to not aid the “greater of two evils.” If, on the other hand, they agree with what Wilson said in his debate with London, (“Sending a good man to Washington is like sending in virgins to infiltrate and reform a brothel.”), then they must adopt the Knoxian approach, i.e.—overthrow. There really doesn’t seem to be any reasonable third option.
All said and done, a vote cast for the Const. Pty. is like voting for Jesus of Nazareth in that the sentiment is understandable and commendable but in the end, symbolic only. As a matter of fact, if in fifty years the Const. Pty. wound up as the premier conservative group, they would then be the “lesser of two evils” and some convicted Christians would nominate Jesus of Nazareth, thus thwarting the progress of what we consider to be the thoroughly Christian candidacy.
Out of time for now~
There are many roads I’d like to take concerning your line of argument, but time is limited here at work. But I think we need to backtrack a bit on what is being argued here so that I am clear on what you are saying.
You ask:
“Is it better to cast vote for a thoroughly Christian candidate (Const. Pty.) who, under current circumstances, will never win or for the pseudo-Christian moralist (Rep. Pty.) who could actually win, thus bringing about at least some of our goals?”
Gathering from your replies, you would not vote for the thoroughly Christian candidate because his party is confused in its objectives, and it would only aid the Democrats, thus allowing the “greater evil” to be in power. And since the moral high road is to preserve innocent life, you cannot vote for a party that would aid the Democrats. Am I stating your position correctly? Or is there more to it than what I am reading?
With certain qualifications, more or less, yeah. The Const. Pty. are their own worst enemies.
Gah! The front page still says "4 comments" even though you have actually written the fifth. Not sure how long ago you responded. Anyway...
Let's say that the Constitution Party does get its act together and are Knoxian in their approach. Would you then vote for them because they have a specific goal? Why or why not?
If they adopted a thorough-going Knoxian social theory there wouldn't be a vote-- atleast not one running against the R & D axis.
Some other appropriately vested lower Magistracy would be endorsed to assume control, stripping the current regime of its power by legal processes. This would be persued not as radical revolution but rather as a return the primary principles of our founding and biblical Law back of it. Inorder to achieve such an end, it would need be adjudicated by a court, that is to say, an entity with some legal jurisdiction. As I said before, Judge Roy Moore's act of defiance was the closest thing I've seen but the difficiency in his case was that he stood alone. Absent was any physical power to arrest and prosecute those who had truly broken covenant and the law. Though he had some claim to jurisdiction, he had no ability to enforce.
There just aren't enough Theonomists in the contemporary Evangelical community for us to claim a Christian rule by consent of the governed. Rienholdt Niebuhr's (sic) "Christian Realism" holds sway. So for now I think we have no choice but to continue the metricular work of the Kingdom, man by man, church by church, until there exists such a body of lawful Christians as would depose our "benevolent Dictatorship".
Or better yet, seeing as how we live in a Representative Democracy, we could just forgo some uneccessary bloodshed and simply vote in Righteous men. But that brings us back around to where we started because if we haven't enough people willing to vote third party, we certainly haven't the numbers to create a Reorganized American Government.
The only conscienable options I see are to first sanctify the Church with God's Law, second, fulfill the great commission, and third, utilize to the furthest extent all legal recourse at our disposal. At present we have such a governmental venue only through the Republican Party while voting for a third party is simply to discard our remaining access to representation.
I know, I know, sloppy-- but its honestly the best I can do in ten minutes. Let me know what you think.
Clarify a bit more for me...
Are you speaking in general, or is it a must to only vote Republican?
If a better party (Christian or not) did have a chance to win, do you still vote Republican?
At what point do you stop voting Republican?
Yeah, absolutely-- if a better party had a realistic chance I'd ditch the Neocons in a heartbeat.
And how would you describe "realistic chance"?
A "realistic chance" in an election means a party posessing a competitive number of constituents in comparison to the Rep. & Dem. parties. For national elections that means a certain percentage of Electoral College seats.
And if the above isn't a consideration, we may as well vote Viggiano for President and Kennard for V.P. If we are unconcerned with the "realistic chance", nothing constrains us to vote only for those on the ticket. Such an approach is effectively surrender.
How about this? We start a theonomic voting block that will have to be lobbyed to. We elect a few, probably very few, representatives, as Republicans, and then use our block to literally block what we find reprehensible. There are already factions in the party, so why not run some decent candidates. What I find apauling, in my own life, is that I am totally disengaged from the process. Us theonomists don't do crap. Rod Martin of Andrew Sandlin fame, told us long ago that we have to be involved at the lower levels to control who gets nominated. That is the real problem. If we don't attend committee meetings locally, the local candidates and the committees will be controlled by warmongers and neo-cons. So, whose up for a trip to a local committee meeting? Anybody? Then shut up!
You're right of course, the localist approach is the starting point but it only begs the question of whom we ought to nominate. Qualified persons of some leizure are hard to come by.
We would optimally want to nominate men of our own congregation (other than currently sitting Elders), or of some orthodox denomination atleast. Any suggestions come to mind?
How about Keith.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home