Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: LowOiL

You see perfection Ted. I do not. I see a very problematic individual.

Vote for him all you like. I won’t be joining you.


107 posted on 02/18/2016 1:42:44 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Facing Trump nomination inevitability, folks are now openly trying to help Hillary destroy him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]


To: DoughtyOne
You see perfection Ted. I do not. I see a very problematic individual. Vote for him all you like. I won’t be joining you.

More Bull. I see Ted as what he is, and it is not perfection whatsoever.

A friend of mine on FB wrote something I think fits in here quite nicely. It was on the subject of "the lesser of two evils". Because if we are being honest, the only perfect candidate would be ourselves.

____________________________

Whenever election time rolls around and the candidates are less than perfect (which is every time), there is a debate between those who refuse to support the "lesser of two evils" and those who insist that we must to prevent the greater evil. Here's my take.

The problem isn't necessarily voting for the "lesser evil," per se. In any dichotomous choice, there will always be two choices that can be presented as a greater and lesser evil, but that doesn't mean that both are evil or we can never choose either. The question is whether we are actually supporting evil or merely getting less good than some ideal.

In a choice between Jesus and the Apostle Paul for your pastor, would it be accurate to describe Jesus as the lesser of two evils just because he's the better option? Clearly not. Yet some take every choice between two options, label it a choice between evils and refuse to choose either. This is faulty reasoning.

On the other hand, in a choice between Hitler and Stalin, both are so evil that you must choose neither. It's not because you can't choose the "lesser evil" but because you cannot support evil.

We must be careful not to let an unattainable ideal become the enemy of the real good we can achieve now. Imperfection and flaws don't necessarily constitute evil that we can't support. If we refuse to support anyone unless we get everything we want, we are contributing to the greater evil by refusing to stand against it where we have a chance of stopping it.

But on the other hand, whoever we support must have some redeeming quality and not be of such horrible moral character that we would contributing to evil in supporting him, even if he is less evil than the alternative. There has to be some minimum standard in place, not merely that we will support anyone as long as the alternative is worse. Sometimes you have to take a stand even when the odds are against you because to do otherwise is to collude with evil. Wisdom is knowing where to draw the line.

112 posted on 02/18/2016 1:54:54 PM PST by LowOiL (Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson