Letters to the Editor

Richard Land shows deplorably poor judgment in suggesting that abstaining from casting a vote in the presidential election would be the thing to do if the choices were Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.

On the specific issue of appointment of strict constructionist federal judges, Land says that because of Giuliani's broken promises to two former wives Land would not believe Giuliani's pledge to make such appointments. Such reasoning ignores the realities of secular politics.

First, we know to a certainty that Clinton would appoint only liberal judges. Failure to oppose her is tantamount to supporting the appointment of additional liberal judges to the federal bench.

Second, Giuliani would be highly motivated to keep his promise because failure to do so could cost him re-election, in the same manner that the broken promise of "no new taxes" contributed to the failure of the re-election effort of the first President Bush.

In choosing between a candidate who says he will do something I support, but might not, and one who I know will work against my wishes I will vote for the one who pledges to be supportive. Although I believe personal morality is an important factor in leadership we must remember that in this case we are selecting a secular political leader, not the next president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I do not support the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani, but if the final choice is between him and Hillary Clinton, he will get my vote. If you choose to abstain from voting in any race you deserve the worst possible outcome, and will probably get it.

A Mormon, a Catholic and a Baptist enter the presidential race. If this sounds like the lead-in for a joke you'd be half right. The political analysis of Richard Land and Russell D. Moore is downright hilarious. So, hypothetically speaking, which of those afore mentioned three would you vote for? According to Land, the Mormon (Mitt Romney) is the best choice. Apparently a Mormon or a Jew is better than a "self-professed born-again Christian like Jimmy Carter" (the Baptist).

Never mind that by electing a Mormon as President, the cult (and that's what Mormonism is) would receive instant legitimacy as a "Christian" denomination and give the Mormon "church" the ultimate spokesperson. No, all that matters is that our president has a respectable appearance and holds a "Judeo-Christian worldview," which you don't have to be a Christian to truly have. Apparently, all that's to this Christian worldview is being pro-life and against gay marriage—"the most important 20 percent" that Rudi Giuliani (the Catholic) lacks. Never mind that this man who has no "moral compass" cleared Times Square of prostitutes and porno theaters, or that he was tough on crime after New York spent two decades more famous for its murders and muggings than for Broadway and baseball. Giuliani proved his ability to lead in a time of crisis on September 11. While this doesn't wash away past sins, we know from the Bible that God uses people, saved or not, to play an invaluable role in his greater plan.