You live in the land of Baal. It is election week. You have been asked to select from a list of two candidates. The first candidate makes the following promise:

“Ladies and Gentlemen of Baal, our nation is plagued with two problems. The first is that we are suffering from gross overpopulation. Second, the gods of pluralistic relevance are angry with us. The only answer to our problems is to take our children and pass them through the fires which will have the beneficial net affect of addressing both crises. If elected I will require that four out of five children eighteen and under be consumed in the fire.”

The second candidate rises to the platform:

“Dear friends, I recognize the problem with overpopulation, and my record demonstrates that I have deep concerns for the gods of pluralistic relevance. However, unlike my opponent, I support the right to life of all children eleven years of age and over. If elected President of Baal, I promise that only four out of five of the children ten years of age or under will actually be sent through the fire and burned alive.”

You are perplexed. What should you do? The statisticians tell you that the radical liberal administration of Candidate A will result in the execution of more than one million children. On the other hand, if the more conservative Candidate B is elected President of Baal, not more than 250,000 children (and those only infants to ten years old) will be burnt to a crisp.

Complicating matters further is the fact you have ten children, ages one to eighteen. You realize that under either administration some of your children are going to be fried alive, but candidate B does not appear nearly as evil as candidate A. After all, Candidate A’s administration will cause the death of four times as many children as Candidate B? That’s a huge difference. Your friends remind you that you need to take what victories you can get in a pluralistic society and work for incremental change. Clearly, only burning 250,000 little boys and girls alive is better than one million of them. “Hey, at least it is an incremental step in the right direction,” they argue.

And what if a vote for Candidate B would mean that only your six month old baby Susie, your three year old son Johnny, your five year old Joshua, and your nine year old Ann would be torturously murdered in the ovens, while the rest of your children would happily enjoy the full protections of free society. Isn’t it better to vote for the man who will only kill some of your children, as opposed to the man who will kill most of them?

The pollsters tell you that the election will be very close, that every vote counts. There are no other ballot access qualified candidates, not even third party candidates, for you to consider.

What should you do? For whom should you vote? Should you vote? Either way, what does your vote, or non-vote, mean in the eyes of God?

In 1996 I asked this question to a well known Christian talk show host on a recorded national radio show. His answer surprised me and sparked a tremendous debate.

Now is your opportunity to respond. How would you vote? Why? Send your answer to Bob@visionforum.com. I will share my own perspective on this question on Monday’s blog. (By the way, to be crystal clear, the above example is definitely not meant to be a comparison of President Bush and Senator John Kerry, Michael Peroutka, Ralph Nader or any specific candidates or elections — it is a principled evaluation of an individual’s theory of voting ethics.)