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.