The Presidential Election: An Excruciating Choice

August 24, 2016

Dr. Richard Land | President
Southern Evangelical Seminary

•••This article was first published at The Christian Post and is used by permission.

This presidential election confronts Christians with a terrible dilemma. Many feel that choosing either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton on Nov. 8 confronts them with an intolerable outcome. Which one is worse?

They find both major party candidates to be morally compromised and are struggling with the dilemma of how to respond. Scores of them have contacted me personally and asked, “What should I do? What are you going to do?”

My answer is, first, you have a moral obligation to vote. I believe Romans 13 makes it clear that supporting the civil magistrate “for conscience sake” includes not only obeying the law and paying your taxes, but voting your values, your beliefs, and your convictions. Your ultimate loyalty must be to Jesus, not any political philosophy or party. Choosing not to vote is disobedient to our Lord’s command to be salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16).

Choosing to wash your hands of the whole thing and withdrawing from the process — what I call the “Pontius Pilate option” — is not a valid or defensible alternative for Christians.

Second, each person has to prayerfully seek the Lord’s guidance as to how they should cast their vote. As with everything else you do, every Christian is morally accountable to the Lord individually for how you cast your ballot — and the Lord will evaluate both your actions and your motives.

Third, when you cast your ballot, you need to think about what the consequences of your actions will be. Your vote does not just concern you — it concerns your children, your grandchildren, your neighbors, your town, and your country and its future course. Elections are like forks in the road, and a country, having chosen one direction over another, often finds it difficult, if not impossible, to go back and undo the impact of what has been done. Elections, especially presidential elections, are often written in indelible ink.

By the way, many millennials I have talked with have said, “Your generation urged Christians to get involved and make a difference and what real difference has it made?” Such questions contain a fatal flaw — comparing the way things are with what they were rather than comparing the way things would have been if millions of Christians had not gone forth as salt and light in the last three decades. Did these Christians accomplish all they desired to do? No, they did not. However, most of them knew that the change America really needed was a Christian revival and awakening, which, alas, has not yet come to our nation. Real American revival will come from a spiritual awakening, not from Washington D.C.

Government is a caboose, not a locomotive. When America’s heart is spiritually renewed (the locomotive), then, and only then, will the government (the caboose) truly change.

However, Christian involvement in the political process has made a significant difference. Without that involvement, for example, President Carter would have had a second term, Ronald Regan would never have been president, and the Soviet Union (the evil empire) might still be tottering on, systematically abusing the rights and crushing the aspirations of hundreds of millions of people.

Now, to answer the questions “what am I going to do” and “how did I arrive at that course of action?” I cannot vote for a third party candidate as a protest vote. Why? To me, this is a variation of the “Pontius Pilate option” and the consequences of this truly “fork in the road” election are too important to merely cast a “protest” vote.

So, how am I going to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? Let me be as transparent as possible. I know several of the Republican presidential primary candidates personally, and they all were far preferable to Mr. Trump. Out of the 17 Republican primary candidates, Mr. Trump was my 18th choice.

However, I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. Why? First, she is the most pro- abortion presidential candidate ever nominated by a major party. In her husband’s Democrat Party, they asserted that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” As the Washington Examiner observed, now “Democrats encourage women to be proud of their abortions. The party abandoned the word ‘rare’ in the 2008 platform, as abortion activists began claiming that the word stigmatized something that was both a benefit to society and a constitutional right.”

Hillary Clinton has evidently never encountered an abortion that she couldn’t live with, even though every abortion stops a beating heart. Now, she and her party want to overturn the Hyde Amendment and force every American citizen to pay for the killing of our unborn citizens.

Second, Mrs. Clinton and her husband are morally and financially corrupt on a scale previously not experienced in American presidential life. They both seem either unwilling, or incapable, of telling the truth. Hillary Clinton’s arguments in defense of her email controversy remind me of the explanation an older minister gave me many years ago of “ministerially speaking.” He explained, “If a minister tells you he had 500 in worship last Sunday and he really only had 300, that is not really lying if you know he’s lying and he knows that you know that he is lying — that’s ‘ministerially speaking.'” No, it is lying.

The other alternative, that she doesn’t know she is lying, is even more disturbing. It implies a psychological impairment that would be truly frightening in a president. Incredibly, having gotten away with activities that routinely land ordinary people in jail, Hillary is now complaining that there is a “Hillary Standard” that is more strict for her than for anyone else. Can we spell the word paranoid?

Furthermore, the financial corruption of the Clintons is a truly lethal threat to American democratic government. The Clinton Foundation is the chief conduit of “Clinton Corruption, Inc.” The level of financial corruption, “pay to play,” and influence peddling is so massive that it may have the capacity to simply overload our entire federal government to the point that it simply collapses. As Patrick Caddell, President Carter’s pollster said earlier this week, the largest criminal enterprise to ever attach itself to the federal government (the Clinton Foundation) took root in the Clinton State Department and now will be transferred to the White House itself if Hillary is elected president.

So, in a fallen world, faced with the painful choice of choosing between the lesser evil (Donald Trump) vs. the greater evil (Hillary Clinton), I believe I have a moral obligation to vote for the lesser evil. Otherwise, I become morally culpable for the greater evil prevailing. Some Evangelicals have said, “If I voted for Donald Trump, I would have to apologize to Bill Clinton.” Frankly, I feel that if I didn’t vote for Donald Trump in order to defeat Hillary Clinton, I would have to apologize to Jesus.

We have all heard “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Just so, we should not let the bad be the friend of the worst. In other words, don’t let a flawed candidate deter us from opposing the much worse opponent.

As I see it, in a worst case scenario, Donald Trump is like being told by your doctor that you have cancer in your left leg and it must be amputated or you will die. You lose your leg, have to have a prosthesis, go through painful rehabilitation, and finally learn to walk again. Hillary Clinton is like being told by your doctor that you have stage four cancer and you are going to die and to get your affairs in order.

Mr. Trump will in all probability not be a good president, and he will do many things with which I profoundly disagree. However, I fear Hillary Clinton may be a terminal president who will destroy this venerable republic.

Consequently, with sadness of heart, I will cast my vote for Donald Trump and pray that God will have mercy on him and on my beloved country.

And I shall pray for you as you wrestle with what God would have you do on Election Day.

As Christopher Nolan’s forthcoming (2017) movie “Dunkirk” points out, “At the point of crisis, at the point of annihilation, survival is victory.”

•••Dr. Richard Land is president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and executive editor of The Christian Post.

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available


A lot of my family feels this way and I’m empathetic, but I will personally vote for neither. One, voting third party is s viable option. Not many people like the current two party system. If we keep voting for Republicans And democrats, then third party candidates will never have a chance. It may take a few election cycles, but eventually it could lead to the replacement of the two party system. Second, actively not voting is an option as well. Supporting civil magistrates is not the same as voting them in. Under Paul’s day, they didn’t get to choose. Just b/c we get to choose doesn’t mean it’s a command from scripture. I did not vote for Obama and I disagree with many of his stances, yet I still call him the president and respect him and his office. I will do the same when Hillary is elected. What I will do is vote all the down ticket races. Local, state, and federal races are arguably of more importance and have impact on our society, yet it gets overlooked. I won’t vote for Trump or Clinton b/c my conscience won’t allow me. When faced with two bad options, obstaining is a good thing. Plus, for years the Republican Party has counted on the Christian vote. If we want to have a voice in the direction of the Republican Party, sitting out will be a huge factor in the future direction. Finally, it’s people who label themselves Christian who are responsible for the Trump mess getting this far. I dont want to be responsible for making it worse.


My parents generation did a much better job of keeping this issue private and a matter of freedom of conscious. But then they tended to be grown ups in their 20’s.

Carter was a “Christian” President. As were the Clintons and Obama. Christian can mean anything these days.

I am not sure our Republic can survive Frank and Claire Underwood again after the economic and socially divisive policies of Obama.

It’s the economy. The Better Off The Peasants are the less power the oligarchs have


    “Christian can mean anything these days.”

    Oh but Lydia, we are a “Christian” nation, aren’t we?! Every four years, all politicians vying for the White House “gets Jesus” before the election – Christian votes matter, you know. Don’t you remember, Brother Bill even sang in a Southern Baptist church choir! We were all so proud of him. And then, he went on to sing himself and the nation into moral chaos. Until the true church – real Christians – pray as they ought, we will continue to have a steady string of national sons and daughters who aspire for the highest office in this land who have stained backgrounds and bad character. What am I going to do come election time? I’m still praying about it.


1. I don’t think Romans 13 is so clear that voting for a candidate who has little chance of winning is violation of scripture, especially if one is voting for “your values, your beliefs, and your convictions.”

2. Every Election is seen by many as the next great turning point in our Country, but taking a longer view, if more and more people reject the 2-party system for a few cycles, perhaps a viable 3rd party alternative will arise.

3. “I fear Hillary Clinton may be a terminal president who will destroy this venerable republic.” I agree, but I think many would say the same thing about Trump! What a mess!

4. I live in Indiana. Indiana will go for Trump. Clinton will win nationally anyway.

5. I believe the best we can hope for is that Trump, or Clinton, whoever wins, will quickly get themselves impeached, and then Pence or Kaine will take over…both are far more qualified to be president! :-)

Jim Poulos

Whether George Washington or Caligula, Jesus is Lord.

    Mr. Torchy

    Yes, and Jesus will continue to be Lord while your friends and family become slaves to an overgrown government gone bonkers. Enjoy the ride your principles have prepared for you.

      Jim Poulos

      Yes, and you enjoy your shallowness.


        Desiring smaller government is shallow?

          Mr. Torchy

          Disagreement with his perspective is what seems to define “shallow”.

          Doesn’t even recognize he’s running a mile wide and an inch deep himself.

            Jim Poulos

            I recognize perfectly some one who doesn’t recognize what ‘Jesus as Lord’ means.


              So anyone who challenges your original cryptic statement above automatically does not recognize Jesus as Lord,?

              I find it strange you allude to there being no difference between George Washington and Caligula. No sane person would imply either one is Lord.

              So what exactly was your point?

              Jim Poulos

              No sane person would say, Cesar is Lord? Please. You need to take a NT course.

              ‘Jesus is Lord’ was a in competition to what the entire Roman world’s identity was built on. But the whole Roman world was not sane?
              This sad present world looks like it wants a Cesar more than a Christ. I guess in a certain way there is something not sane about that.

                Mr. Torchy

                I don’t know. Kinda looks to me like you’re not willing to recognize much beyond your own platitudes and shibboleths.

                NT courses and seminaries don’t necessarily make good Christians even when Kaiser is Kurios.


Considering our form of government allows us to speak in and to the process, I, too, believe that we have a moral obligation to vote. Dr. Land is correct in saying that this election is a difficult one to process. However, the problem I have with this article is Dr. Land limits the moral obligation in voting to a two party system. What would we do if Hillary Clinton was the Democratic Nominee and Bill Clinton was the Republican Nominee? How would we go about choosing the “lesser evil?” Some may scoff at the “what if,” but do we really have that big of a distinction between Bill Clinton and Trump when it comes to Biblical principles in Scripture? Can you “in good conscience” vote for Trump knowing his evolving stance on abortion? Can I really trust that he will put forth a Supreme Court nominee that is Pro-Life or is he just like all politicians that promise everything under the sun during the election process and change when voted in? Can you vote for Trump “in good conscience” knowing his stance on marriage equality and his promotion of it? Can you vote for Trump “in good conscience” knowing he has been a large promoter and owner of gambling institutions? Can you vote for Trump “in good conscience” knowing the way he demeans and treats people and brags about it? Can you vote for Trump “in good conscience” knowing that he is a narcissist? Can you vote for Trump “in good conscience” knowing of his extramarital affairs and his attitude towards them? For these moral reasons alone, I cannot vote for Trump “in good conscience!”
For these reasons and more, I will be voting third party, specifically Darrell Castle (Constitution Party). If we continue to limit our vote to a two-party system, what we have this election will continue and will only get worse. While I am sure that Darrell Castle will not win the election, I know that my conscience will be free and clear. Knowing that Hillary or Trump will impose a compromising moral onto our country, I can rest assured that I did not endorse them with my vote.

    Kyle Gulledge

    Greetings Adam,
    First let me thank you for interacting with Dr. Land’s article. I also want to say that I do not speak for Dr. Land, just myself. I appreciate that you agree with Dr. Land about having a moral obligation to actually go and vote–but then you turn down a road I do not understand in the rest of your comment. You attempt to make an analogy in which you place Bill Clinton on the “Republican” ticket. The problem with this “what if” you posted is simply that it presents a fallacy. It would be like saying, what if “a little green man from mars” was on the Republican ticket. It is just non-sense to try to use such a comparison. Next you then you accuse Dr. Land of “limiting” the moral obligation of voting to a two party system. This would have been fine, but then you added: “While I am sure that Darrell Castle will not win the election…” This admission is quite telling. Even you admit that there are only two viable candidates who have a chance of winning–Trump or Clinton. My question would be if you know your candidate has NO chance of winning would that not be the same as not voting? Wouldn’t it be like writing in your own candidate just for the sake of having a “clear conscience?” How can your conscience be clear if you know your vote has not impact on the outcome? As I have often said to my friends–not voting, or voting third party, will in effect be a vote for Hillary. Dr. Land’s article is spot on in regards to why I cannot vote for Hillary. I think you should re-read Dr. Land’s article where he even admits that Trump will probably not be a great president–but he is the much better option when compared with Hillary.


      Jonathan, good to see you commenting even though you are stepping down as editor. 2 things:

      1. Voting 3rd party this election is a longer-term hope of future change, one which many believe will not happen without a few cycles of 3rd party losses. It is not about this election, which they see as already lost, no matter who wins.

      2. “How can your conscience be clear if you know your vote has not impact on the outcome?” I live in Indiana. My vote will not impact the outcome because Trump will carry Indiana, especially with Pence on the ticket. My vote “might” join others in showing that a large number were unhappy with our choices this year. Much of my family lives in Ohio…their votes will have a much greater impact than mine.

        Kyle Gulledge

        Hello Andy, though I am stepping away as editor–I will still do my best to read and contribute when I can. Let me follow up your two points.
        1. You say it is a “long-term” goal. So what about now? Do you think there will be much of a future if Hillary is elected? You say it is not about this election–but it is. Whoever is elected in this race will have huge implications for the future including a SCOTUS replacement. Do you truly believe that sitting idly by in this election will be a benefit to the future?

        2. I live in Kentucky, I have family in Ohio and Arkansas. Besides naming where our families are let me take aim at this line–“My vote ‘might’ join others in showing that a large number were unhappy with our choices this year.” Might?! That is a dangerous world to live in. I KNOW that if Hillary is elected that my Christian values and beliefs will be shattered. I KNOW that she can and will do much harm to the church. These aren’t “mights.” I will not forsake the current situation for a “might” make a difference future. I already have a firm future–with my Father ;)


          1. I suppose I simply see this election as 2 really big unknowns, with 2 candidates who seem to be morally “fluid”. I don’t think it’s ALL about scotus, though if I do come around and vote for trump, that would be the only reason. But the opposite argument could also be made…Trump could start WW3, he could turn around and appoint pro-abortion judges, he could do almost anything, since his position on every issue is fluid and evolving. Perhaps we should vote for Hillary instead of sitting “idly by” and waiting for the trump disaster?
          — “Do you think there will be much of a future if Hillary is elected?” People said the same thing about Obama, about Bill Clinton. The world didn’t collapse. Yes, the moral decay continued and accelerated, but it was some of the republican appointed judges who gave us the Gay Marraige ruling. I simply don’t see it as a cut-and-dry “all Christians must vote this way”…especially this year.

          2. “I KNOW that if Hillary is elected that my Christian values and beliefs will be shattered. I KNOW that she do much harm to the church.”
          —I guess I don’t understand this comment. I don’t think any president will shatter my beliefs and values, but I do agree that EITHER person elected WILL do things contrary to my beleifs, and I would say I KNOW a president trump would do harm to the chruch.

          –as far as the “mights”…. We are all doing the same thing, hoping our vote “Might” make a positive difference…some hoping trump “might” appoint conservative judges, who then a few years later “might” vote to oppose abortion and/or restrictions of religious liberty. Neither of those are anything close to a sure thing. No matter who anyone votes for, we are all voting based on things that “might” happen.

            Kyle Gulledge

            Hey Andy,

            Thanks for the kind response. I am not sure I agree with your–Trump could do this or that–scenario–again that is a lot of what ifs. Hillary is campaigning on a platform that already flies in the face of Religious Liberty/Freedom. Yes, the Christian world bemoaned Obama–and they were right, we have accelerated toward liberalism like never before in our history. You said “all Christians must vote this way,” but who are you quoting? I never said such a thing. You said you don’t understand my “I KNOW” comments–but they are pretty easy to follow. Hillary is vehemently pro-abortion–I’m not. Hillary is vehemently pro-gay “marriage”–I am not. Hillary is the polar opposite of many of the founding principles of Christianity. With this kind of person in control of our government–it would shatter us a church, not as individuals–as God’s church will stand. I am not sure how you can say that you KNOW Trump will harm the church, he may, but Hillary will. That’s the difference (for me). I would rather have the hope of a might appoint conservative judges, and might oppose gay marriage than a blatant candidate who whole-heartedly already supports such things. Have a blessed day!


      Thanks for your reply. Let me follow up on some of my statements. I intentionally used the comparison of Bill Clinton running on the Republican ticket because I believe Trump is very similar to a 1992/1996 Bill Clinton candidate. During those elections, Christians bemoaned Bill Clinton for his womanizing, ask/don’t tell policy, scandals, lying, and many other things. Is Trump much different? I think one could make the argument that they are very similar. That is why I used that specific analogy. While I will concede that the “what if” is a fallacy, I do not think you can argue that 1992/1996 Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are much different. That was my intended point. In 1992, Republicans were arguing for “family values” and therefore supported overwhelmingly the Republican ticket. Christians cheered when impeachment proceedings were conducted and cried when Bill Clinton wasn’t convicted on impeachment. But in 2016, we are willing to support a 1992/1996 Bill Clinton type candidate and telling ourselves that we can stand in good conscience. I can’t buy that!

      I will stand by my statements that Dr. Land limits the moral obligation to the two-party system and I disagree with him. The truth is that there are multiple, viable candidates. And with that truth, my vote for a 3rd, 4th, or 5th party candidate is still a vote. You asked, “How can your conscience be clear if you know your vote has no impact on the outcome?” The answer is simple…This is no different than if I voted for Trump and he lost. Did my vote impact the outcome? I should not vote based upon who has a chance of winning, but based upon my beliefs and my conscience.

      “I think you should re-read Dr. Land’s article where he even admits that Trump will probably not be a great president–but he is the much better option when compared with Hillary.” I understand the statement, but think about it…A vote for Donald Trump results in a not so great president. I couldn’t agree more! Better than Hillary? Possibly, but not guaranteed. After all, Trump supported Hillary in 2008 and said she would make a great president!. That is who I should vote for so that I can have a clear conscience? I don’t think so. However, by voting for neither and going with someone who lines more very closely with my moral and biblical principles (Darrell Castle), I have performed my moral obligation of voting without compromising my conscience…and I can live with that!

        Kyle Gulledge

        Thanks for the gracious response Adam. I do see the comparison you are going for with the 92/96 Clinton analogy–but it was not very clear in your first comment, and no, I don’t see the similarities (as you can make those comparisons with any one). I see how we have a difference of understanding, which is fine, but I am much more willing to vote for Trump as a man of God than I am voting for Hillary who stands in stark contrast to most of my beliefs–and I do so with a clear conscience. Have a blessed day!

        Mr. Torchy

        Balderdash. A “viable” candidate is anybody or anything that can manage to get elected . “Someone who lines more very closely with YOUR moral and biblical principles” does not consider the greatest good for the greatest number and is, therefore, a reprehensible retreat on the part of otherwise responsible citizens.

        And they’ll shrug off responsibility as their personal “sacrifices” to Christ?…..spare me the moralizing, please. Attitudes like this deserve to be first in line to feel the weight of an already steroid-fed bloated government when it goes completely off the rails.



Ten or 15 years ago, imagining “What if Donald Trump were the Republican nominee for president?” would have similarly failed the “little green man from Mars” test–yet here we are. While Bill Clinton might not have been the most analogous example, based on the current trajectory of our social and political culture it’s not remotely absurd to wonder what we would do if 8 or 12 years from now both major-party candidates are pro-choice. The reductio ad absurdum of Dr. Land’s position forces us to ask the question of what we would do if we found ourselves in that position. It seems to me that Adam and Andy are using a rubric to pick a candidate based on a wide variety of factors (not that you or Dr. Land aren’t) and they are voting for the future, not just the next four years. A third party will never be viable until a bloc of voters decides that the two major party offerings are unacceptable and, over time, chip away at the two-party mentality that prevents so many people from voting for who they actually want to see in office. In order to pave the way for a third party to emerge in 4 or 8 or 12 years, people have to vote for them now. This strategy seems completely in keeping with a Scriptural mandate a la Romans 13, particularly when choosing between candidates as thoroughly unacceptable as Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton. You ask Adam above how his conscience can be clear if he knows his vote has no impact on the outcome; however, I would submit that his vote for a third party actually has a much more significant overall impact than your vote for Mr. Trump. The most recent polling data from Kentucky shows Mr. Trump with a commanding 13 point lead over Sec. Clinton ( Barring a massive and unprecedented reversal, by your own admission Sec. Clinton has roughly the same chance of carrying Kentucky that a third party does: none. With the same degree of certainty that you “KNOW” what Sec. Clinton will do in office, I think it’s fair to say you also “know” that Trump will carry all of Kentucky’s electoral votes. I pose the inverse of your question to Adam back to you: if you “know” a candidate has no chance of losing, is it the same as not voting? Obviously not. But the fact remains, if you know a candidate has no chance of losing, why not vote your conscience? A single vote for a third party has a monumentally larger impact than a single vote for a major party candidate, but even more so when you live in a “sure thing” state like Kentucky as opposed to a battleground state like Florida or Ohio where you wouldn’t have that option. Why make yourself complicit in the election of Donald Trump when your vote could instead go to someone who actually represents your values? Your goal seems to be preventing Sec. Clinton from being president; pragmatically, that’s accomplished as far as Kentucky is concerned. I could understand a defense of voting for Mr. Trump in a battleground state or even a “leans Trump” state–but in a “likely Trump” state like Kentucky, would you not be able to accomplish both a contribution toward Sec. Clinton’s defeat (Kentucky’s electoral votes going to Trump) as well as paving the way for a third party system at the same time? Why are these mutually exclusive?


    “Ten or 15 years ago, imagining “What if Donald Trump were the Republican nominee for president?” would have similarly failed the “little green man from Mars” test–yet here we are. ”

    Oh we have been heading here for years. Who would have thought we would have elected a Manchurian Candidate 8 years ago? But look how it has become our normal! No one even questions it anymore.

    And many years before that, we decided it was ok for the President to use his office for sexual favor and sell access. That President and his wife have been selling access for 20 years. Very few give it a second thought anymore. It is now considered the normal to become very wealthy from “public service”.

    I have fewer problems with a bombastic jerk then I do with pure deception. I am not so much about personalities than I am about the” possibility” of a smaller government.

    The less power they have the less damage they can do.

Gail Pottinger

Trump’s personality, especially the name-calling and his thin skin make me cringe; but for me, his inexperience in government and foreign policy is the scariest aspect of a “President Trump” scenario.

Apparently, many people plan to vote for Trump because of the threat of liberals being appointed to the Supreme Court. Personally, I do not like being blackmailed into voting for someone whose every word and action is the antithesis of my idea of a decent human being. I do not for one minute believe Trump’s new, more nuanced stance on immigration or minorities. Maya Angelou advised that when someone shows you who they are, you should believe them. I think this may be the most important time in history to take her advice.

As a lifelong Republican, I am now without a party. The disconnect I feel with the Republican Party began years ago when President Bush attempted to pass the Path to Citizenship. Not only did the Democrats in the House vote against the bill, but many Republicans did as well. At that moment in time, I began to realize that my values did not line up with the party of Lincoln, which was already becoming influenced by far-right Tea Party rhetoric. Still, I voted Republican in the next two elections.

In this election, though, I cannot vote for the Republican nominee. Therefore, I began to take a close look at the Democratic Party, and have found that about two-thirds of the platform aligns with my own beliefs. However, the one issue that will always separate me from this party is abortion, or as liberals like to say, “reproductive rights.” That sounds so much more pleasant than what it actually is. If the only rights involved were the rights of the mother, then I would support a woman’s “reproductive rights.” However, another human life is at stake. It is not just the woman’s body once another life is created. She now shares her body with another human being – a human who should be able to depend on his or her mother for protection. Yet in the case of abortion, the mother is the enemy. Roe v. Wade made abortion legal, but it did not and cannot make it morally right. The Supreme Court decision didn’t change the fact that what occurs in an abortion is the taking of a human life. In my book that is murder.

Still, for this election only, I will vote for Hillary for President, and for Republicans in the downline. I will count on a Republican House to bar any far left Supreme Court nominees. I am convinced that Trump, with his thin skin, angry rhetoric, and volatile personality, poses more immediate danger to those of us currently alive than Hillary alone can possibly pose to the unborn. I will continue to pray for the hearts and minds of Pro-Choice women – that they will open up to the possibility that all human life is worth saving, including the unborn.


1. Im not a big fan of calling not voting the Pontius Pilate position. The choice for Pontius Pilate was to free a Perfect God Man or sentence Him. He chose the cowards way out. The presidential election is between two evil people and it isnt cowardly to vote for neither evil.
2. If I vote for a 3rd party I am literally not voting for Hillary.
3. If a non vote for trump is a vote for Hillary is a non vote for Hillary a vote for trump?
4. Christians are forfeiting the moral arguments we made against Bill Clinton. Were we wrong?
5. Perhaps Hillary would be a bad choice for the US and prove to be good for the Church? The Roman govt was worse and Christianity grew.
Some thoughts. Love the dialogue. It’s been good reading.

    Jim Poulos


    For dialog: that is oversimplifying Pilates positions as cowardly. The entire leadership of the Jewish nations were being relentless to crucify Jesus. Three times Pilate argued to release Jesus. Finally when the Jews, God’s People, sided with Cesar and used that to challenge Pilates ‘friendship’ with Cesar did Pilate finally cave in. Remember, Pilate, as a Gentile, was ‘in the world’ without the Hope that the Hope one the Jews knew. There should be a little sympathy for the position Pilate was in. Even Jesus recognized his sensitive position when He said, “you only have authority because it was handed over to you, those who delivered Me to you are more accountable.”

    Can’t lose context to appreciate the whole story.

    There is a principle here for those who like to mock those in authority.

Jon Estes

Well stated Dr. Land.

John K

I’ll know what to do on November 8th.

Matthew 6:34
Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

    JIm Poulos

    John K,
    I think Someone important gave that advice.

    Good word.

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available