For all the "he did this" and "he did that" nonsense of the presidential campaign, it seems to me that the question facing voters is a simple one: What is morality?

The Prez believes that morals are set in stone (literally, if we're talking about the Ten Commandments), and as such, God will reward those who follow his (the Prez is on record as stating his belief in the male gender of the deity) dictates. This explains the Prez's seemingly absurd view that everything in Iraq is going well. He believes that spreading freedom--however you do it--is a moral act, and thus God will make it right one way or another. He also believes that lowering taxes is a moral act (he really said that), so I guess he also believes that somehow God will reach down and wipe away the deficits if taxes are lowered enough.

Sen. Kerry, on the other hand, tends to define morality in terms of how a person treats other people. He also extends that belief to make a moral question out of the ways our society (and government) treat our people and people around the world. So he sees the war in Iraq that way, questioning the way we dismissed our friends's concerns and also our use of "evidence" that we knew was bogus.

One could define these two belief systems as "Old Testament" and "New Testament," but that would be overly Christianizing them, and it really wouldn't be accurate, either. What we're really talking about here is the difference between grace (sometimes combined--or confused--with faith) and works.

In short, the doctrine of grace holds that a person's place in heaven is determined solely by God. If God "elects" to extend its grace to you, then you will be saved. On the other hand, the doctrine of works holds that a person's place in heaven is determined by that person's actions in this life. Good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell--St. Peter does the math at the pearly gates, if you will.

The Presbyterians are probably the closest to a "pure grace" position, while the Roman Catholics are probably the closest to a "solely by works" position. But all Christian churches (including the ones mentioned above) have dogma that combines these two concepts in one way or another.

Those who fundamentally decry a doctrine of works say, in effect, that such a belief takes God (and faith itself) out of the equation. They don't believe that a saintly non-believer can get into heaven. Those on the other side of the fence might ask what good is God's grace if you act like an asshole all the time.

Barbara Bush once told a story about her son, the Prez. She and George (he wasn't Prez yet) were arguing about whether or not people like Gandhi (I'm not sure of the actual non-Christian folks in question) could get into heaven. She said yes. He said no. She called up Billy Graham, and supposedly Billy set George straight.

Kerry, on the other hand, is pretty much dead solid in the "works" camp. He could have come home from Vietnam and simply stewed about what he'd seen. Instead, he stood up and said what he believed. Not acting would have been wrong, an immoral act by omission. The Prez, on the other hand, likely would have seen standing up against the war as immoral, because he believed that fighting communists was always the right thing to do. He wouldn't have seen (and doesn't see) any conditions where "right"" can become "wrong."

Other folks talk about these moral distinctions in terms of "absolute" and "situational" ethics. There are probably a million permutations of this question. But the simple fact is that the Prez believes that which God has ordained cannot be rendered asunder--even though it's damned hard to tell when God ordains something--and Kerry believes that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Neither is a perfect way of looking at the world, of course. There are some absolutes ("thou shalt not murder" is a good one), and there are lots of situations which demand significant consideration and even reconsideration. Getting Joe Gibbs to come back and coach the Redskins after a decade-long layoff seemed like a masterstroke at the time, but right now, that isn't looking like such a hot proposition.

Wait, that's news from the "other" Washington. Oh well. The point stands. Which leaves us holding two leaky bags. And each of us has got to vote for one. There's no excuse this year. Make your choice, and vote.

Jon Worley was voter #5089 at the early voting polling place on Saturday. At that point, more than 15,000 people in Durham County, N.C., had already voted. It's a start.