The Evil in the “Lesser of Two Evils”
By: J.B. Hixson, Ph.D.
10/19/2012
Some 700-800 years before Christ, the nation of Israel faced the darkest hour in its history. The people had completely forsaken God. The rule of law was virtually non-existent. Worship of false gods was rampant, as was ritualism, hypocrisy and internal strife. It was a terrible time for the nation that led ultimately to the defeat of its capital city Samaria.
The prophet Hosea was an eyewitness to the fall of Samaria. His prophetic message was born out of intense personal passion and life experience. He pleaded with the Israelites to return to God and to the principles of His law. He called them to repent and return to the moral standards of righteousness set forth in God’s Word. Hosea wrote, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”
Hosea’s indictment is as relevant today as it was 2,700 years ago. Christians today suffer from a rampant lack of biblical, principled knowledge. It is an epidemic of ignorance in an age of relativism. Scripture plainly cautions against marginalizing and ignoring God’s truth: “Where there is no regard for divine truth, the people show no restraint, but blessing comes by keeping the law” (Prov. 29:18).
Multiple studies show that only a small fraction of Christians (some studies show as few as 1 out of 10) make decisions based upon the standard, “What does the Bible say?” In other words only 10-20 percent of Christians say the Bible trumps all other considerations when making important decisions.
One of the most important decisions we make is the choosing of our nation’s leader every four years. Tragically, when millions of conservative evangelical Christians head to the polls in less than three weeks, most will cast their vote in the presidential election based upon a popular, but deeply flawed, utilitarian argument. When casting their votes, most will also cast aside biblical principles and opt for a humanistic approach to decision-making that elevates pragmatism over principles.
Here is how the argument goes: “Neither candidate is good so I guess I will just have to vote for the lesser of two evils.” This is more than just a pithy maxim; it is a deeply rooted argument. It is as if Christian voters feel compelled by some unseen force to vote for a candidate even though they readily admit that the candidate is evil (though perhaps less evil than his opponent).
Let that sink in for a moment. It is astounding that conservative Christians, whose belief system is supposed to be built upon the Bible, would adopt an approach to decision-making that by its very nature condones evil. Never overlook the “evil” in the “lesser of two evils.” A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote for evil no matter how you justify it.
Among evangelical conservative Christians, the mere mention of the name Barack Obama is met with audible groans. His evil views on issues such as abortion and homosexuality are well documented and not in dispute. The characterization of Barack Obama as “evil” is spot on.
Yet one cannot help but wonder if the conservative Christian viewpoint on Obama has more to do with the “D” after his name than it does the actual substance of his views. After all, many conservative Christians appear ready to dutifully support the candidate with an “R” after his name even though his views on the same issues are no different than Obama’s and may even be worse!
Or perhaps the blind Christian support for Romney is the result of the influence of the powerful “Christian right” lobby that has thrown its money and support behind Romney and succeeded in convincing the average Christian that he is the “obvious choice for Christian voters.”
Regardless, when the facts are examined, no Christian who believes that the Bible is the only authority for our beliefs, attitudes and practices could ever vote for Romney (or Obama).
In both his U.S. Senate campaign and his Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign, Mitt Romney has been an outspoken and dogmatic supporter of abortion. His rhetoric was not mere political appeasement, but rather the expression of deeply held, passionate convictions on the matter. In television ads, campaign posters, interviews, debates, and on his official web sites Romney’s position has been radically pro-abortion.
In a televised debate moderated by Tim Russert he said emphatically, “I have been very clear on that. I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and I’m devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts’s pro-choice laws. And with regard to this issue of age of consent, it is currently eighteen years old. If one wants to have an abortion younger than that….and if a parent does not go along, one can go to a judge to get that permission. And so far in Massachusetts’s history when a young woman has gone to a judge not one single time has there been a denial of that permission. And so I am in favor of retaining our current laws.”
When asked by Tim Russert in the same debate whether he would support a 24-hour waiting period to enable young women to get counseling before aborting their babies, Romney replied, “I want the voters to know exactly where I’m going to stand as governor. And that is I am not going to change our pro-choice laws in Massachusetts in any way. I will preserve them. I will protect them. I will enforce them. And therefore I’m not going to make any changes, which would make it more difficult for a woman to make that choice herself.” Romney went on to say, “My position has been the same throughout my political career.”
Even three years after his so-called “pro-life conversion” (upon deciding to seek the Republican nomination for president), he signed into law $50 taxpayer funded abortions—including partial birth abortions at the time.
Romney’s view on homosexuality is just as radical and just as clear as his view on abortion. During his U. S. Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy, Romney bragged that he would be more effective than Kennedy at promoting gay rights. Romney endorsed Barney Frank. He supported Ted Kennedy’s federal gay rights legislation establishing special protective class status for homosexuals and cross dressers.
Romney illegally, unconstitutionally and unilaterally instituted same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Some of his blind supporters have suggested he was forced to sign the executive decision by order of the court. But this is simply not true. The Massachusetts state constitution is unambiguous on the matter. Only the legislative branch can pass or change laws. Romney used his governor’s magic wand to institute same-sex marriage.
Moreover, after issuing the order, Romney took the extra step of personally changing all Massachusetts marriage certificates to read “Partner A” and Partner B” instead of “Husband” and “Wife.”
Romney forced Catholic Charities to place children with homosexual couples even though he was under no obligation to do so. And he nominated registered democrats or independents, including two openly homosexual lawyers who have pushed for even more aggressive same-sex marriage rights, for three-fourths of the thirty-six judicial vacancies on his watch.
As governor, Romney increased funding for homosexual, bi-sexual, and transgender education beginning in kindergarten.
This is just a fraction of the evidence illustrating Romney’s support and promotion of evil. For those who take even five minutes to honestly review Romney’s record, the evidence is overwhelming. Romney is an “Obama in Republican’s clothing.”
The Bible speaks directly to the issue of whether or not God’s people should support candidates who promote immoral causes. “An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous” (Prov. 29:27).
“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).
“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan” (Proverbs 29:2).
Christians have a biblical duty to support candidates who stand for morality. It is simply not okay for us to shun this duty by glibly invoking the “lesser of two evils” motto.
Philosophically, the “lesser of two evils” argument breaks down pretty easily. How much evil is acceptable? Take the issue of abortion for example. Is Candidate A preferred over Candidate B because Candidate A supports killing 1% of infants whereas Candidate B wants to kill 99% of infants?
Suppose Candidate A supports murdering five and six year old children but Candidate B supports murdering five, six, and seven year old children. Is it okay to support Candidate A because he is “less evil” than candidate B?
Where do you draw the line? How about here: Any candidate whose view on abortion ends with the words, “…and then it’s okay to kill the baby” is unacceptable. God’s Word values all babies, not just 99% of them. Remember, Jesus was willing to leave the ninety-nine sheep to save the one. All life is precious.
Ultimately, the “lesser of two evils” argument comes down to how much evil are you comfortable with? Well, how about none.
When it is known without a doubt that a candidate holds a position that directly violates one of God’s clear commands in Scripture, no Christian should support that candidate. Far too many Christians are comfortable supporting a candidate because of his empty rhetoric or party affiliation, all the while winking and nodding at that same candidate’s glaring immoral record.
If God desires morally righteous government leaders, shouldn’t Christians vote for morally righteous candidates? Again, “An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous” (Prov. 29:27). The Scriptures are filled with examples of godly men who chose to please God rather than man, men who stood on principle in the face of governmental evil. God honors those who honor His Word!
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego did not choose the “lesser of two evils” when they bucked the Babylonian system (Dan. 3). Neither did Daniel (Dan. 6).
Paul did not succumb to a corrupt religious/political system, but instead understood that he answered to God above all else (Gal. 1:10). Peter and John did not choose the “lesser of two evils” when faced with pagan leaders who were violating God’s standard, but rather chose to do what was “right in the sight of God” (Acts 4:19).
Why is this clear biblical principle so hard to understand? Or is it that Christians understand it, but simply lack the moral courage to obey it?
As one writer aptly put it, Christians need to spend more time thinking about who should win the election rather than worrying about who could win the election! We are accountable to God first and foremost and we should do whatever we can to support candidates who affirm (by their actions and words) God’s standards—even when the conventional odds are against them.
Vote on principle and leave the results up to God. Is not God sovereign over all rulers? It is not the voter’s job to vote for a “party” or a “platform” or an “agenda.” Our job is to vote for a person.
Someone might object, “But there are no perfect candidates.” This is true. But when evil is patently obvious, we are without excuse. Certainly we can begin, at a minimum, by supporting candidates who do NOT believe in murdering infants and who do NOT support sodomy and same sex marriage.
Isn’t it better to vote your conscience and leave no “evil ballot” on your hands than to yield to the system and promote evil? The fact that God, in His sovereignty, sometimes allows evil rulers to persist does not give Christians the freedom to support such evil rulers.
If “the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord” (Prov. 21:1), why do we feel we need to help God battle evil by promoting “just a little bit of it” here and there? That’s crazy. The argument that “one of these evil candidates is going to win anyway so I may as well pick one and throw my support behind him” is simply unbiblical.
Christians often lament the sad state of affairs in government and long for more principled leadership. Perhaps it is time to start searching our mirrors to find more principled voters.
“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ” (Colossians 2:8).
10/19/2012
Some 700-800 years before Christ, the nation of Israel faced the darkest hour in its history. The people had completely forsaken God. The rule of law was virtually non-existent. Worship of false gods was rampant, as was ritualism, hypocrisy and internal strife. It was a terrible time for the nation that led ultimately to the defeat of its capital city Samaria.
The prophet Hosea was an eyewitness to the fall of Samaria. His prophetic message was born out of intense personal passion and life experience. He pleaded with the Israelites to return to God and to the principles of His law. He called them to repent and return to the moral standards of righteousness set forth in God’s Word. Hosea wrote, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”
Hosea’s indictment is as relevant today as it was 2,700 years ago. Christians today suffer from a rampant lack of biblical, principled knowledge. It is an epidemic of ignorance in an age of relativism. Scripture plainly cautions against marginalizing and ignoring God’s truth: “Where there is no regard for divine truth, the people show no restraint, but blessing comes by keeping the law” (Prov. 29:18).
Multiple studies show that only a small fraction of Christians (some studies show as few as 1 out of 10) make decisions based upon the standard, “What does the Bible say?” In other words only 10-20 percent of Christians say the Bible trumps all other considerations when making important decisions.
One of the most important decisions we make is the choosing of our nation’s leader every four years. Tragically, when millions of conservative evangelical Christians head to the polls in less than three weeks, most will cast their vote in the presidential election based upon a popular, but deeply flawed, utilitarian argument. When casting their votes, most will also cast aside biblical principles and opt for a humanistic approach to decision-making that elevates pragmatism over principles.
Here is how the argument goes: “Neither candidate is good so I guess I will just have to vote for the lesser of two evils.” This is more than just a pithy maxim; it is a deeply rooted argument. It is as if Christian voters feel compelled by some unseen force to vote for a candidate even though they readily admit that the candidate is evil (though perhaps less evil than his opponent).
Let that sink in for a moment. It is astounding that conservative Christians, whose belief system is supposed to be built upon the Bible, would adopt an approach to decision-making that by its very nature condones evil. Never overlook the “evil” in the “lesser of two evils.” A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote for evil no matter how you justify it.
Among evangelical conservative Christians, the mere mention of the name Barack Obama is met with audible groans. His evil views on issues such as abortion and homosexuality are well documented and not in dispute. The characterization of Barack Obama as “evil” is spot on.
Yet one cannot help but wonder if the conservative Christian viewpoint on Obama has more to do with the “D” after his name than it does the actual substance of his views. After all, many conservative Christians appear ready to dutifully support the candidate with an “R” after his name even though his views on the same issues are no different than Obama’s and may even be worse!
Or perhaps the blind Christian support for Romney is the result of the influence of the powerful “Christian right” lobby that has thrown its money and support behind Romney and succeeded in convincing the average Christian that he is the “obvious choice for Christian voters.”
Regardless, when the facts are examined, no Christian who believes that the Bible is the only authority for our beliefs, attitudes and practices could ever vote for Romney (or Obama).
In both his U.S. Senate campaign and his Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign, Mitt Romney has been an outspoken and dogmatic supporter of abortion. His rhetoric was not mere political appeasement, but rather the expression of deeply held, passionate convictions on the matter. In television ads, campaign posters, interviews, debates, and on his official web sites Romney’s position has been radically pro-abortion.
In a televised debate moderated by Tim Russert he said emphatically, “I have been very clear on that. I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and I’m devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts’s pro-choice laws. And with regard to this issue of age of consent, it is currently eighteen years old. If one wants to have an abortion younger than that….and if a parent does not go along, one can go to a judge to get that permission. And so far in Massachusetts’s history when a young woman has gone to a judge not one single time has there been a denial of that permission. And so I am in favor of retaining our current laws.”
When asked by Tim Russert in the same debate whether he would support a 24-hour waiting period to enable young women to get counseling before aborting their babies, Romney replied, “I want the voters to know exactly where I’m going to stand as governor. And that is I am not going to change our pro-choice laws in Massachusetts in any way. I will preserve them. I will protect them. I will enforce them. And therefore I’m not going to make any changes, which would make it more difficult for a woman to make that choice herself.” Romney went on to say, “My position has been the same throughout my political career.”
Even three years after his so-called “pro-life conversion” (upon deciding to seek the Republican nomination for president), he signed into law $50 taxpayer funded abortions—including partial birth abortions at the time.
Romney’s view on homosexuality is just as radical and just as clear as his view on abortion. During his U. S. Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy, Romney bragged that he would be more effective than Kennedy at promoting gay rights. Romney endorsed Barney Frank. He supported Ted Kennedy’s federal gay rights legislation establishing special protective class status for homosexuals and cross dressers.
Romney illegally, unconstitutionally and unilaterally instituted same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Some of his blind supporters have suggested he was forced to sign the executive decision by order of the court. But this is simply not true. The Massachusetts state constitution is unambiguous on the matter. Only the legislative branch can pass or change laws. Romney used his governor’s magic wand to institute same-sex marriage.
Moreover, after issuing the order, Romney took the extra step of personally changing all Massachusetts marriage certificates to read “Partner A” and Partner B” instead of “Husband” and “Wife.”
Romney forced Catholic Charities to place children with homosexual couples even though he was under no obligation to do so. And he nominated registered democrats or independents, including two openly homosexual lawyers who have pushed for even more aggressive same-sex marriage rights, for three-fourths of the thirty-six judicial vacancies on his watch.
As governor, Romney increased funding for homosexual, bi-sexual, and transgender education beginning in kindergarten.
This is just a fraction of the evidence illustrating Romney’s support and promotion of evil. For those who take even five minutes to honestly review Romney’s record, the evidence is overwhelming. Romney is an “Obama in Republican’s clothing.”
The Bible speaks directly to the issue of whether or not God’s people should support candidates who promote immoral causes. “An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous” (Prov. 29:27).
“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).
“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan” (Proverbs 29:2).
Christians have a biblical duty to support candidates who stand for morality. It is simply not okay for us to shun this duty by glibly invoking the “lesser of two evils” motto.
Philosophically, the “lesser of two evils” argument breaks down pretty easily. How much evil is acceptable? Take the issue of abortion for example. Is Candidate A preferred over Candidate B because Candidate A supports killing 1% of infants whereas Candidate B wants to kill 99% of infants?
Suppose Candidate A supports murdering five and six year old children but Candidate B supports murdering five, six, and seven year old children. Is it okay to support Candidate A because he is “less evil” than candidate B?
Where do you draw the line? How about here: Any candidate whose view on abortion ends with the words, “…and then it’s okay to kill the baby” is unacceptable. God’s Word values all babies, not just 99% of them. Remember, Jesus was willing to leave the ninety-nine sheep to save the one. All life is precious.
Ultimately, the “lesser of two evils” argument comes down to how much evil are you comfortable with? Well, how about none.
When it is known without a doubt that a candidate holds a position that directly violates one of God’s clear commands in Scripture, no Christian should support that candidate. Far too many Christians are comfortable supporting a candidate because of his empty rhetoric or party affiliation, all the while winking and nodding at that same candidate’s glaring immoral record.
If God desires morally righteous government leaders, shouldn’t Christians vote for morally righteous candidates? Again, “An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous” (Prov. 29:27). The Scriptures are filled with examples of godly men who chose to please God rather than man, men who stood on principle in the face of governmental evil. God honors those who honor His Word!
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego did not choose the “lesser of two evils” when they bucked the Babylonian system (Dan. 3). Neither did Daniel (Dan. 6).
Paul did not succumb to a corrupt religious/political system, but instead understood that he answered to God above all else (Gal. 1:10). Peter and John did not choose the “lesser of two evils” when faced with pagan leaders who were violating God’s standard, but rather chose to do what was “right in the sight of God” (Acts 4:19).
Why is this clear biblical principle so hard to understand? Or is it that Christians understand it, but simply lack the moral courage to obey it?
As one writer aptly put it, Christians need to spend more time thinking about who should win the election rather than worrying about who could win the election! We are accountable to God first and foremost and we should do whatever we can to support candidates who affirm (by their actions and words) God’s standards—even when the conventional odds are against them.
Vote on principle and leave the results up to God. Is not God sovereign over all rulers? It is not the voter’s job to vote for a “party” or a “platform” or an “agenda.” Our job is to vote for a person.
Someone might object, “But there are no perfect candidates.” This is true. But when evil is patently obvious, we are without excuse. Certainly we can begin, at a minimum, by supporting candidates who do NOT believe in murdering infants and who do NOT support sodomy and same sex marriage.
Isn’t it better to vote your conscience and leave no “evil ballot” on your hands than to yield to the system and promote evil? The fact that God, in His sovereignty, sometimes allows evil rulers to persist does not give Christians the freedom to support such evil rulers.
If “the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord” (Prov. 21:1), why do we feel we need to help God battle evil by promoting “just a little bit of it” here and there? That’s crazy. The argument that “one of these evil candidates is going to win anyway so I may as well pick one and throw my support behind him” is simply unbiblical.
Christians often lament the sad state of affairs in government and long for more principled leadership. Perhaps it is time to start searching our mirrors to find more principled voters.
“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ” (Colossians 2:8).
Recent
Archive
2025
March
God, Satan, and Sandy Hook ElementaryIs Haiti a Harbinger?The Evil in the “Lesser of Two Evils”New BeginningsA Truly White ChristmasThe Counsel of God's WordAll is ForgivenIdentity CrisisThings that Matter… Things that Don'tTurn Down the Volume so You Can HearWILD BOARS LOOSE IN THE VINEYARDA Measure of AssuranceReign, Reign, Go AwaySpiritual SomnambulismYou Might Be a Fool If...Bright Lights and Other DistractionsLife Is Not a Game of Go FishThere is No ComparisonLeggo My EgoThe Insanity of IngratitudeThankful for the Little ThingsSurviving the Culture of NowA Forever SaviorSlow Down and Save TimeHope in ExileDon't Just Do Something, Stand ThereTrue LoveGod in the MidstOnly God Is GreatOne Nation Under GodGodly FearThe Amazing RaceNew Life in ChristFruit InspectorsThe Calcium of the SoulGood, Better, BestLord, Please Send More BearsElusive PeaceEasily AmazedIn a MomentWhat Goes Around Comes AroundThe Good, the Bad, and the UglyIndiscriminate GraceBackseat DriverThings Are Not Always As They AppearLook for the LightDoctrine Is DeadThe Golden KeyWarm On the InsideBelieve it or NotWhose Neighbor Are You?Planks, Specks, and Self-Righteous PrigsCloudy MedicineNever Look Back?Are Monsters Afraid of You?Old Habits Die HardContending with HorsesSeeing the InvisibleNever Underestimate the EnemyGod Can Tie His Own ShoesHe did itDo You Believe in Miracles?Storybook EndingGod's Return PolicyToo Good Not To Be TrueStand UpLife's PuzzlesThe Lord is my ShepherdBeside Still WatersThe Right PathValley of ShadowsDelivered from the EnemyWho You Are When No One Is LookingBig World, Big GodIt's Who You KnowSin, the Soil, and SalvationClark Kent ChristianityPrecious MemoriesWaiting and SoaringA Little Birdie Told MeOur God ReignsTrust in the LordGive Credit Where Credit Is Due
April
Thanks but No ThanksSin... Own ItWhat You See is What You GetWill You Be A Fool for Christ?Spilled MilkThe Tenderness of CompassionLife's Instruction ManualWhere Do You Live?Stop. Look. Listen. Think.At Your FingertipsHead for the Hills?Is it Time Yet?The Balm in GileadOwn ItThe Greatest ResetAbundant GracePaid in Full
No Comments