Voting For Obama
by Ted Slater on 02/13/2007 at 9:43 AM
I wrote a post a couple of days ago arguing the counter-Marxist perspective that being rich is not necessarily a bad thing. Within one comment it had turned into a discussion of whether or not Christians could support pro-abortion presidential candidates such as Barack Obama.
I've deleted all the irrelevant comments from that thread. Please continue the discussion here.
Feel free to visit Sen. Obama's church's website to get a better sense of this man's faith.
1. John said the following at 9:13 AM on Feb 13
I don't believe any true Christian could ever be elected President in this day and age. There are too many compromises with evil a candidate or President has to make. Furthermore, everyone who reaches that level of politics is blackmailable or controllable. A man (or woman) who really had the character to put God first would be shut out of the primary process or, in the alternative, suffer character (or other) assassination.
Obama is as slick as Bill Clinton and probably the same kind of Christian.
2. Dr. Ransom said the following at 10:36 AM on Feb 13
Obama is pro-abortion. So is Sen. Hillary Clinton.
But so is former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, or for that matter, so *was* Massachussetts Gov. Mitt Romney (who is also Mormon). Both are potential *Republican* presidential contenders.
If we vote based only on abortion, as if the president is able to change it single-handedly anyway, we are faced with a difficult decision: the "lesser of two evils" paradox again.
In that event, the question becomes:
Which party's candidate is more *likely* to lean pro-life, and to have a party platform closer to pro-life ideals?
And what is worse: a liberal who truly believes abortion should be legal and Roe v. Wade upheld, or a candidate who is conservative on nearly all other issues, but "moderate" on abortion and thus more likely to allow the overturning of Roe v. Wade or nominate the Supreme Court justices who could do this?
These are questions worth pondering in the (surely voluminous) comments ahead.
3. Amanda said the following at 10:54 AM on Feb 13
I wouldn't vote for him because this is the first topic I look for in a canidate. They have to be pro-life before I would ever vote for them. I know not everyone is like that but for some reason one of my biggest hot buttons is abortion.
4. Vincenzo said the following at 11:31 AM on Feb 13
I saw a pretty interesting interview with Robert Kiyosaki (Rich Dad Poor Dad) yesterday where he was commenting on Obama's comments about taxation for the rich. He was saying that taxation would ultimately fall on the high income people, not the rich. The rich are able to shelter their fortunes in a way that protects them from the taxation that Obama speaks of. Unfortunately, I think the wealthy get bashed way too much. Many super-wealthy people are some of the most giving and generous. For example, I read that Bill Gates wants to give away his entire fortune upon his death.
5. Dawn said the following at 12:02 PM on Feb 13
I agree with Dr. Ransom. It is highly unlikely that the president's stand on abortion is going to make a significant difference in the abortion debate in America.
Changing public policy is something that we need to be aware of as Christians, but we cannot allow our stance on abortion to begin and end at our choice for president. There is much that can be done at a local level, even if it is just getting involved personally in a crisis-pregnancy care center.
There are so many issues that Christians should have opinions on - it seems like abortion and gay marriage are the only ones that we speak out on. What about social justice? Poverty? Education? Are we as Christians incapable of having passionate discussions of these issues as well?
I realize that a great many Christians DO care about these things, but this is definitely not what the "religious right" is known for.
6. Kerry said the following at 12:40 PM on Feb 13
I used to only vote for pro-life candidates, being very pro-life myself. Until I noticed one HUGE thing, most prolife candidates have no impact on the abortion debate. Have we made a constitutional amendment to ban abortion? No, and that was when Rebulicans ran congress, with a Republican president!
Moreover, if I had to pick between a conservative pro-abortion and a liberal pro-abortion candidate, I would most definetly pick the liberal one because they will care more about the issues of the poor like health care for low income families, because to me that is one issue that I believe is just as morally important as abortion. What if the reason women do not have children and have an abortion is because of the health care cost? If I was a poor single, unbelieving woman with an unplanned pregnancy; the $10,000 possible cost of a having a baby might make me more likely to choose abortion than adoption. The medicaid for having a baby does not cover everything, especially the costs of the mother after the child is born. And that is if the mother is "lucky" enough to qualify for medicaid. Let me reiterate here that I am very prolife and would not have an abortion, but this is a significant reason why women do have abortions.
7. kim vv said the following at 12:50 PM on Feb 13
I'm curious about Senator Obama.
I consider myself a conservative Democrat, supporting the idea of government supporting the less fortunate, but with morally conservative standards. Neither of the two parties appeal to me.
Obama obviously has some quality that attracts media attention, and I find myself rooting for him. But who is he, really?
8. Justin said the following at 12:56 PM on Feb 13
I voted for George W. Bush because I'm pro-life and I despise abortion. Also, I was fed up with Bill Clinton's behavior in the White House. (He deserved to be impeached.)
That said, George W. Bush started a war based on erroneous information which resulted in the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
As such, I have become a little more lenient on my abortion position. And I'm leaning toward Barrack Obama, who though pro-choice, opposed this ridiculous war from the beginning.
9. Mandi said the following at 1:50 PM on Feb 13
How many times have 3600 or so people died in ONE DAY in the war? We'd all remember. Well, that's how many Americans die every day, just due to surgical abortion (to say nothing of the lives lost through abortifacients like the Pill, etc).
What kind of a person who would do nothing to chip away at legal abortion can be trusted to be "compassionate" to the disabled, the poor, or the elderly? People like that will shut down what pro-life tools we do have right now, like CPCs and abstinence education.
Just because we haven't totally eliminated the scourge of abortion doesn't mean we should not make that our first priority when voting.
And that's the thing: abortion must be the #1 priority because the right to life is basic to all other rights -if you don't have it, there's no poverty, etc. to discuss. Hungry people have better prospects of improving their lives than aborted ones.
This really goes back to the importance of worldview. If you have a Christian worldview, you see that there is something unconscionable in supporting ANY candidate from ANY party that supports abortion because God did not ordain political power to thwart the laws He Himself has placed on our hearts.
Laws might not change hearts, but they can change behavior (any parents reading would relate). But more than that, a properly constructed set of laws can change hearts. See this article for more: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5478
Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us that what we do to the least of these (or not), we do unto HIM (or not). It's hard to imagine someone in the human family that's smaller than a newly conceived child - there isn't.
10. JBurke said the following at 1:58 PM on Feb 13
Thanks for the link to Obama's church's site. It was very insightful and unfortunately unsettling. May God rise up a leader in our country whose only agenda is His glory.
11. Erica said the following at 1:59 PM on Feb 13
Although I find that Christian Americans spend so much time fighting abortion yet they do not spend time challenging the issues that leads to it. To vote for man whether he is prochoice or prolife does not make any sense if the underlining issues that lead to abortion are not tackle. In order to tackle the abortion issue, the christian americans should tackle the issues that lead to abortion. The Poverty, Education Issue and encourage young girls to get involve in activities at school and church to develop their whole personality rather than concentrate their relationship and sex at such young age. I am amazed at the young age that I heard girls are going on date in USA.
As you know, I'm not an America and I believe that American Christians should concentrate on electing a president on other issue other than prochoice and prolife. Conservatives are prolife, but they are have the dream of USA taking over United Nation and governing the whole world. What will this lead to more threats to other countries apart from venezuela, North Korea, Iran and Syria. Also, creating more angry islamist who believe getting on a plane, train and blown out themselves to send a message. Although I am not an American I might be on a train in London, Madrid or somewhere else when that bomb goes off. To me Conservative is very religious, prolife and racist. Southern USA is very conservative and very religious but is also very racist.
By the way I cannot think of a country that a USA Liberal Government invaded.
Americans must elected a president based on his ability to increase the quality of life for all americans and improve the relationship that USA have with all the countries of the world.
Abortion and Gay Marriage are very important issue to tacke but we need to hear about poverty, healthcare, education, welfare. In Jamaica, persons who have high blood pressure, diabetics, sickle Cell, Asthma medications are subsided by the government. Do you have a similiar service in the USA.
12. PJ King said the following at 2:10 PM on Feb 13
John: I would not quickly say that a Christian can not be (and has never been) a President.
Dr. Ransom: I think we should focus on discussing specific candidates, rather than their parties (although parties play an important role in the election).
Mandi: good thoughts.
My comment:
As Christians, we should not look at politics through the lens of our current political parties. We need to look through the lens of the gospel.
The most important issue I have with a candidate is his stance on abortion. If I was to publicly support him, he must have an pro-life world view, and have the intention to do something about it.
I then look at the candidate's personal life (has he been married 3 times already?) and see if it exposes some bad traits.
I then look at his platform concerning the homosexual agenda.
After that, other life issues come in to view, such as euthanasia, assisted-suicide, and such.
And then I want a candidate to have a heart for the people who are suffering, be it financially, medically, or otherwise.
I think it is important to try to minimize the importance of a candidate's party affiliation, and focus on his personal platform.
The primaries are such an interesting and important time in the selection of a president. The primaries are when people are able to choose from multiple options; to find someone who (most closely) matches his or her own views. I highly encourage you of voting age to participate in this process.
When it comes to the actual election, however, things can be somewhat dimmer. It is at this point when you have trouble identifying with all the platforms of a candidate. It is here where it seems you are choosing between the lesser of two evils. At this point, I still look at a candidate in the order of my priorities, but there is a chance that none will be in line with my top concerns. This is when the voting process becomes painful.
I also encourage you young voters to beware of voting for third party candidates. Although he may match your views most closely, he will not win an election, and your vote is somewhat wasted. To be clearer, I'll make an example: There are candidates Bad, Mediocre, and Great (with respect to lining up with your views). Bad and Mediocre are Democrat and Republican (or Republian and Democrat) and Candidate Great is a third party. If Great has no chance of being elected, and you vote for him instead of Mediocre, then you are improving the chances of Candidate Bad being elected.
To speak specifically on Obama:
He is a very likable guy; he has that lovable charisma about him. However, he is very pro-choice, and that is an automatic veto for me since I currently have other options.
Here's my take on the current options:
Do you want someone who is pro-life (in every way)?
Do you want someone who is against the homosexual agenda?
Do you want someone who supports adoption (and has adopted children himself)?
Do you want someone who cares about the crises in Africa (and other parts of the world)?
Do you want someone who cares about the poor in America?
Do you want someone who wants to see prisons reformed?
Then I highly suggest researching Senator (Kansas) Sam Brownback. www.brownback.com
He's the only bleeding-heart (liberal-esque), socially conservative (for life issues) candidate I've heard of.
I'm not saying the guy's perfect (and certainly, some things could be revealed over the next 2 years) but with as much as I know about the candidates currently, he is my top pick.
13. PJ King said the following at 2:13 PM on Feb 13
Excellent point JBurke - I was saddened that a church would post that as it's important concerns and visions. It mentions so little of the purpose of a real church...
14. James said the following at 2:26 PM on Feb 13
JBurke, I agree with you, but I wonder: would God bless us as a nation with such a leader now? Or have we, as a nation, become so wicked that He has left us to our own wicked devices?
Now, I'm a patriot and I love this country I live in, but I don't look at things through star-spangled glasses. We are a wicked and deceitful people, deserving of God's justice. I speak of us as a nation. Obviously, those of us who are believers are saved. But still, one has to wonder whether or not this nation has been left unto its wickedness by the Almighty.
15. Dale said the following at 2:42 PM on Feb 13
Obama's church the United Church of Christ is hardly "Unapologetically Christian" as they claim.
To see the replies to this topic is disheartning. As a Christian, I can not even fathom voting for someone who is pro-choice. I would rather abstain from voting for anyone than vote for a pro-choice president.
What President Bush has given us is 2 conservative Supreme Court judges who may eventually overturn Roe vs Wade. The president also has the power to veto or sign into law the banning of procedures such as partial birth abortion.
16. Dale said the following at 2:47 PM on Feb 13
Forgot to add the following -
Erica, I would suggest coming to the southern USA before making such general statements that we are all racist here.
Also, only a fool believes that if we pull out of Iraq and be good lil Americans that mind our own business then the terrorists will leave us alone.
As I seem to remember they invaded/attacked us first. It is their brainwashing teaching them to hate "the great white satan" from birth that drives them to attack us, not our actions.
17. Jethro said the following at 3:22 PM on Feb 13
Mandi,
You said "abortion must be the #1 priority because the right to life is basic to all other rights -- if you don't have it, there's no poverty, etc. to discuss. Hungry people have better prospects of improving their lives than aborted ones".
Great, that's your opinion and it is no more or less valid than the opinion of anyone else here.
I'm also a little confused as to how you reached the conclusion that abortion = right to life and no right to life = cause of hunger, poverty etc.
Dale,
Apparently you have confused terrorism/Sept 11 and the Iraq war. The 'they' who attacked us first had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq. The US might as well have attacked Lithuana, given that no connection was established between Al-Qaeda and Saddam.
Oh, you also said: "It is their brainwashing to teaches them to hate 'the great white satan' from birth that drives them to attack us, not our actions"
So that means that 50 years of interventionist foreign policy played no role and one day the Mulsim world just woke up, through a dart at a map of the world and decided to hate whatever country it hit? Please, no-one can excuse terrorism, it is an abhorrence beyond comprehension, but I think it's naive to think that the US has played no part in causing many muslims to hate us. We must identify the cause of the problem if we hope to identify a solution.
18. M said the following at 3:30 PM on Feb 13
Poverty and education are issues directly affected by traditional marriage.
The cold hard facts, which Boundless has produced umpteen times, are that kids who grow up in a home with their married mom and dad are statistically more likely to be in school, and finish it. Finishing school is vital to one's prospects of breaking out of poverty. Futhermore, marital breakdown contributes to financial downfall by at least doubling expenses without doubling resources.
When you treat gay "marriage" like it's just one more issue, you compromise the solid basis upon which your kids live. You dramatically decrease their chances of staying in school, staying out of trouble with the law, or seeking false intimacy outside of marriage (which frequently ends in unplanned pregnancies, and then in abortion), as the marriage stats clearly show.
And that is to say NOTHING of how incompatible gay "rights" are with religious freedom, which in turn affects the dissemination of the Gospel.
So if, as a daughter or son of Christ, you care about poverty, education, and evangelization, you cannot support Obama, or anyone else regardless of party who isn't SOLID on what marriage is and is not.
19. Becky F. said the following at 3:32 PM on Feb 13
Erica, you said: "By the way I cannot think of a country that a USA Liberal Government invaded."
What about the invasion of Mogadishu, Somalia that Pres. Clinton called for in 1993? Granted, the Somalia issue began during the first Bush administration in 1992, but that is a country that was invaded by a so called "liberal" government.
20. M from up North said the following at 3:38 PM on Feb 13
Dale - I totally agree. People need to read the history of how these terrorists have treated Christians from the dawn of their religion to grasp what is going on here. This is bigger than any U.S. foreign policy. This has been going on for much longer than the U.S. has even existed. Just look at the cross that the Christian communities in the Middle East have had to carry.
Obama either doesn't get this very simple fact, or doesn't care. Either way, that's disturbing.
21. Dr. Ransom said the following at 3:47 PM on Feb 13
Becky F.:
Perhaps Erica's comment should be amended, in light of Somalia.
"By the way I cannot think of a country that a USA Liberal Government invaded -- *successfully* ."
;-)
22. Jonathan from Canada said the following at 3:51 PM on Feb 13
Plenty of American Christians used to vote for pro-slavery presidents back in the 18th and 19th centuries. Will God be good to His word and save them anyway? At least slaves had life. Aborted fetuses have neither life nor liberty.
Remember: everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.
23. Emma said the following at 3:55 PM on Feb 13
PJ King- I second what you said about Sam Brownback. Like you said, he is adamantly prolife, valuing the unborn, the family, and the dignity of all human persons. A true "compassionate conservative" to use the cliche. I think he is the best candidate for true conservatives.
Regarding Obama, though he is a likeable guy and I admire his life story, he is out of the question for me given that I will not vote for someone who is prochoice.
I am also very concerned that the Republican frontrunners, McCain and Giuliani, are not very prolife. (Giuliani is very prochoice, and McCain allows abortion under certain conditions and supports embryonic stem cell research.) If those of us who are prolife do not take action, we could end up with an election without a prolife candidate. We need to spread the word about Sam Brownback!
24. Amanda said the following at 3:57 PM on Feb 13
After going through the training at a local CPC I learned just what Pro-choice presidents have done in the past.
Bill Clinton for instance vetoed the partial birth abortion ban. I will never vote for a pro-choice candidate for that reason again. People think “What can one person do?” Just look at Bill Clinton, he has set us back YEARS. We are still struggling to get back to that vote again.
I do agree with the person who mentioned the justices that have been placed since Bush has been in office. There is no one that is perfect and being Christians we have all most certainly been taught that. I know Bush has made mistakes but everyone will. Maybe just maybe that will get somewhere now with the justices he has put into office. I can only Hope and do what Jesus would do. I find it unlikely to believe that Jesus would vote for someone that was pro-choice.
Thank you PJ for your discussion on the possible types of candidate. Great, Bad, and Medicore... It will defiantly make me think more when I go to vote.
25. Ted Slater said the following at 3:59 PM on Feb 13
Jethro -- you wrote, "The 'they' who attacked us first had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq."
You've got the talking points down, but you're wrong. The people who are killing innocent Iraqis and coalition forces are indeed Islamic militants, bent on seeing their ideology forced upon others at the edge of a sword (or IED). And it was Islamic militants who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 as well.
This is a long war against Islamic Fascism, Jethro. A war that started before President Bush took office.
Islamic Fascists have been trying to bend the knee of the infidel for centuries, though they've stepped up their work in the past few decades because of the weaponry available to them. America didn't cause Islamic terrorism; it's part of their ideology, something that defines who they are.
26. Mike Theemling said the following at 4:05 PM on Feb 13
It is true that a President cannot directly outlaw abortions in this country (likewise not force states to have abortion-on-demand laws either), but to say that a President's influence is "negligable" is far from correct. Consider the following:
- The President nominates Justices for the Supreme Court. These 9 people have more influence on our daily lives than anyone else in Washington IMO. Remember it was they who legalized abortion in the first place. Also consider that once a Justice is selected, they are there for LIFE and very rarely retire early. Further consider that many of the "hot" issues (abortion, affirmative action, etc) have been decided by close 5-4 votes.
- The President can veto any bill brought from the Congress. So if a President is abortion-friendly and a law which restricts abortion is brought to him/her chances are it will be vetoed. Since a veto is almost impossible to overturn (need 2/3 majority) laws which have no chance of making it rarely make it past committee and thus never into public law.
- The President has some authority being chief ambassador to other countries to do things like withhold funding (or at least influence the process) to other countries and organizations. Remember several years ago the controversy of President Bush not supporting some U.N. initiatives because those initiatives also supported abortion.
I do find it strange for openly Christian candidates to support abortion with few restrictions. If you ask them if it's murder they will either say "No" or say, "Yes, but it's not up to the government to say but the individual". This of course is kind of ridiculous since the government DOES put a lot of rules of what we can and can't do and in essence is 'regulating morality' or at least affirming what we consider as morally right. They also are being a bit hypocritical because many enter public office under the supposition they are doing so to "instigate change". So why then would they be planning to change something in an area they believe is wrong (and not others) and yet say in another area it's not the government's responsibility?
27. Amanda said the following at 4:16 PM on Feb 13
Thanks to those who have mentioned Sam Brownback. After going to his website I have a different favorite.
28. Anne said the following at 4:23 PM on Feb 13
The president's postion on abortion has a direct impact on abortion policy in this country.
Why?
Because the legalization of abortion took place in the courts, therefore it will only be made illeagal through a constitutional amendment (unlikely) or if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
This will hinge on the ideology of those appointed to the Supreme Court. And the ideology of those on the Supreme Court will be directly impacted by the president's ideology.
Pro life presidents nominate pro life judges.
Pro life senators confirm pro life judges.
Do not, do not, do not underestimate the impact of any elected official's position on abortion.
29. Jonathan from Canada said the following at 4:27 PM on Feb 13
As someone indicated above, let's keep in mind these things are about selecting the best option. If two "pro choice" candidates are up in 2008 like Rudy and Obama, at least Rudy is closer to the "life" side.
This is why it's so important to participate in primaries. Start working for your candidates now. I'd especially encourage young Democrats to support their pro-life candidate. Democrats are more willing to talk about it now.
--
May I also throw California congressman Duncan Hunter into the mix.
- Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition;
- Rated 100% by the Family Research Council;
- Rated 0% by NARAL.
And he knows his foreign policy.
30. JB said the following at 4:57 PM on Feb 13
I was wondering what the problem is some people seem to have with Senator Obama's faith? Is it just that he's pro-choice or is it that his church's website emphasizes social and political activism? If it's the former, surely that at worst makes him mistaken but doesn't mean his faith is not sincere. If it's the latter, surely godliness and activism are not exclusive. Martin Luther King was no less a Christian when he was marching against segregation.
31. Jethro said the following at 6:25 PM on Feb 13
Hi Ted,
Your honesty is appreciated as ever. In the same vein I would say to you that you are both right and wrong.
Right that Islamic militants attacked the US on Sept 11 and right that Islamic militants are conducting attacks in Iraq. You are wrong on the key point however - that is, the Islamic militants who attacked the US on Sept 11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Now Al Qaeda may well be operating in Iraq at the moment and attacking troops etc there, but they were not operating in Iraq prior to the war. This is a key distinction.
You are also right that the genesis of Islamic militancy predates Bush, but I don't think I ever suggested anything to the contrary.
I found this statement particularly interesting however: "Islamic militants, [are] bent on seeing their ideology forced upon others at the edge of a sword (or IED)"
Boy that strategy seems familiar. Does it seem to you at all like the US is trying to force its ideology (democracy) on others (Iraqi's) at the edge of a sword (long range missile). Strange how similar enemies can be isn't it?
Oh, you're also right that America didn't cause Islamic militancy. But if you throw gas on a fire you can't claim surprise when it blows up.
32. Dale said the following at 9:08 PM on Feb 13
JB, The problem we have with Obama's "faith" is he has said he does not believe the part of the Bible where it speaks against homosexuality and also if you will do a search for the United Church of Christ, go to their denomination page and read their articles of faith you will find they are not in line with core Biblical beliefs.
I.E.
http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/ona.htm
All Chrisitans should be social and policital active as long as they conform to what the Bible holds true.
33. Brandon said the following at 10:34 PM on Feb 13
I think we will never be able to legislate morality. Making abortion illegal will cause people to get abortions done in unsafe ways. Unlicensed people will be trying to perform them and more lives will be hurt by making them illegal. We need more education for teens on pregnancy, adoption, and more funding for them to be able to afford to keep them. This is the only way we can reduce the number of abortions. That is why I can vote for Obama because he is more than just abortion and he sees beyond just making it illegal.
34. Justin said the following at 7:16 AM on Feb 14
I'm pro-life, socially conservative, and I believe strongly in the institution of marriage.
As such, I believe we should offer the same rights to gay people. Allowing gays to get married will lead to less promiscuity among the gay community, thus strengthening our society.
Another reason why I'm probably voting for Obama.
35. Dale said the following at 8:57 AM on Feb 14
"Allowing gays to get married will lead to less promiscuity among the gay community, thus strengthening our society"
Certainly Justin you dont believe that do you? That is like saying, im going to cheat on my girlfriend until I get married, then im going to be monogamous. Rather absurd I believe.
This has been a heartbreaking post. I know this is just a small percentage of believers, but such rationalization does not bode well for the future of the church.
Even so Lord Jesus, Come
36. John said the following at 9:00 AM on Feb 14
Ted, your "talking points" answer to Jethro was a bit condescending. Not everyone who disagrees with you is reading off a Democratic talking points sheet. Sometimes the truth is the truth. The Kingdom of God is not necessarily the same as the Republican Party. Truth is ultimately about more than American partisan politics.
37. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:25 AM on Feb 14
Brandon, you said:
"I think we will never be able to legislate morality. Making abortion illegal will cause people to get abortions done in unsafe ways. "
Actually, morality and law go hand in hand. When you make/enforce a law you are essentially making a statement saying, "this behavior is right or wrong". So, it IS regulating morality.
What I think you are saying is that the government should not make laws which is contrary to the majority of people's beliefs because people won't follow them anyway. This has some merit. Many arcane, crazy laws still exist on the books which no one would seriously enforce or follow.
However, in the case of abortion, that is not the case. A significant portion of the country believes it is wrong or at least believes it should be allowed only in rare circumstances (e.g. rape, incest, or endangering the life of the mother). The mere fact that many States are passing anti-abortion laws only to have them thrown out in federal appeal courts shows a real disconnect between what the people want and what is actually law.
Also, it's flawed thinking that since some people are going to "do it anyway" that the government should not do anything about it. First of all, for almost any negative behavior there will always be some percentage of people who will do it regardless of the laws. Does that mean that we shouldn't have them? There will always be people who peddle child pornography. So does that mean we shouldn't ban it? There will always be drug users, so should we legalize all drugs? etc.
The other issue people don't realize is that many falsely assume that if their behavior doesn't seem to "affect others" (such as drug use) than it shouldn't be illegal. The fallacy here is that often it isn't the case. Say we suddenly legalized any and all drug use. What would happen? Undoubtedly you'd end up with more vehicular fatalities (similar to drunk driving accidents), more ER's filling up (because of overdoses), more domestic violence, etc. It may SEEM that the law won't affect anyone, but in reality it's not that way (try telling the family whose loved one was killed by someone who was high that drug use "doesn't hurt anyone").
Back to abortion, I agree that there needs to be more than just saying it's illegal. I'm all for prevention, education, etc. And I agree that if outlawed it would cause some mothers to resort to practices which would put their lives in danger. However, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be illegal for the same reasons other behaviors are deemed illegal, among those reasons being that we value all life as sacred.
38. Mandi said the following at 9:36 AM on Feb 14
We legislate morality all the time: we've got rules about rape, stealing, and murder, don't we? In other areas of the world, these things are not necessarily illegal. So the question is not of legislating morality, but WHOSE morality. That is a function of the law, to define the bottom demoninator of our moral code as a society.
That is not to say that there aren't things, like pre- or extra-marital sex that are wrong and cannot be legislated. There are. But surely ripping apart babies within the wombs of their mothers on the basis of a legal fiction that bears no reflection to scientific reality is something a supposedly decent, enlightened, just society can attempt to put limits on, if not ban outright. Voting for the likes of Obama, Clinton, Guiliani, et al. will not do that.
The suggestion that gay "marriage" will reduce promiscuity amongst homosexuals does not reflect, with the greatest respect, an informed view of the homosexual lifestyle. Nor does it reflect a respect for natural laws (a fish is not a tree no matter what you say), or God's Word.
And, with the greatest respect to my Western brothers and sisters in Christ, I have to say with GREAT love that while Obama's church's faith statement is appalling in many respects, it is just another natural result of the doctrine of sola scriptura.
39. Dr. Ransom said the following at 9:36 AM on Feb 14
"Allowing gays to get married will lead to less promiscuity among the gay community, thus strengthening our society."
This to me seems absurd, Justin. Allowing "heterosexuals" to get married hasn't decreased promiscuity in *that* "community." And how exactly will Obama pull off legalization of gay "marriage" anyway, when every time the issue is actually brought before the states -- not the courts -- 50 to 80 percent vote against it?
Obama will likely only make it to the *second* name on "Hillary / ___ 2008" bumper stickers anyway, if at all. 'Tis far too early in the year to plan voting for anyone, especially on so spurious a notion.
40. Dale said the following at 9:48 AM on Feb 14
I agree with Dr Ransom,
I believe that Obama and Hillary both will flame out and not make it past the primaries, especially Obama with even the Mainstream Media mentioning his lack of experience.
41. HP said the following at 10:42 AM on Feb 14
I think Brandon makes an excellent point. Those lobbying to make abortion illegal always fail to mention that abortion would continue to exist despite the revocation of Roe vs. Wade - it would simply move underground. Abortion has been practiced for centuries, but has only been legal since the 1970's. If abortion were illegal women would be forced to seek abortions from unlicensed doctors in dirty "clinics"; thus endangering many women's lives. If Americans are serious about eliminating abortion, they should support candidates who are serious about lowering healthcare costs, improving access to healthcare and birth control, improving access to higher education, and offering more support to working and single mothers, etc. If these objectives are ever met in this country, we may one day see expecting mothers less focused on how they are going to provide for an extra mouth, and more focused on the joy and love that will come from a new life.
As far as regulating morality... I think we can all agree that crimes such as murder and rape are immoral, and should be punished accordingly. However, the United States has a history of attempting to regulate a very specific morality - that of the religious right. One can see evidence of this in the ongoing campaigns involving pornography, censorship, gay marriage, abortion, drugs, alcohol, and stem cell research. These issues are not black and white, and it would bode well for us to remember that there is indeed a separation of church and state in this country, and for a very good reason.
Voting for a candidate based solely upon his or her religious beliefs is a very dangerous thing.
42. Mandi said the following at 11:21 AM on Feb 14
HP, with the greatest respect, is it "regulating morality" to say that it would be wrong to kill you? Poverty, educational level, and marital status are all totally irrelevant to the question of abortion. We would not say as a society that it would be acceptable for poor, uneducated, and/or single women to kill their BORN children because of their poverty, lack of education, or single status. If you think that's different, you're just highlighting that the only question to be answered is this: is the unborn human? If so, abortion cannot be allowed by law.
I invite you to consider the famed SLED test, highlighting the 4 differences between the unborn and the rest of us:
S - size
L - level of development
E - environment
D - degree of dependancy
You can read more about it here: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2006/11/the_sled_test_w.html
None of these differences is morally relevant to the question of whether abortion should be legal.
As for the supposed separation of church and state, it warrants a closer reading of the words of your constitution. There is a prohibition on the state encroaching upon the church, but not on people of faith trying to influence public policy.
43. Dr. Ransom said the following at 11:26 AM on Feb 14
"These issues are not black and white, and it would bode well for us to remember that there is indeed a separation of church and state in this country, and for a very good reason."
I must object to that remark very strongly.
Who or what exactly says such a "separation" should exist? An 1801 letter from Thomas Jefferson, assuring the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association that his administration and the new national government will not cross a "wall" to interfere with their rights?
This is the origin of the phrase, but hardly the concept; instead the concept is utterly foreign to the Constitution. And no, it finds no basis whatsover in the First Amendment, which only prohibits the official, national establishment of a specific organized religion. Religious principles or symbols are hardly an organized religion, just as allowing their mention or influence is hardly an official, national "establishment."
What precedent, besides that of recent liberal court rulings, is there to declare the influence of Judeo-Christian ethics -- defined now as a "church" rather than principles -- should be banned, while the influence of secular humanist ethics -- never defined as the religion it is but rather declared "neutral" -- is perfectly fine and reasonable?
All people are religious. All law is based in *some* system's version of morality.
"Neutrality" is not the issue; deciding religion or "no religion" is not the issue; instead, resolving conflicts *between* religious systems is at issue.
One would do well researching the origins of the phrase "separation of church and state" and its results jurisprudence before rehashing this canard as if it somehow automatically proves Judeo-Christian principles alone have no place in politics.
44. Amanda said the following at 12:20 PM on Feb 14
HP, I would have to say that it would Never FORCE a woman to have an abortion by a "dirty" doctor. Last I saw no one forced anyone to do anything.
45. JB said the following at 12:40 PM on Feb 14
Well if nothing else, this conversation certainly illustrates how far apart we are in our approaches to faith and politics. Those of us on the left say that a fetus isn't a person and same sex marriage is rooted in fundamental human rights. Those on the right say that abortion is murder and gay marriage will destroy society. And we both claim to represent the best policy options and the most authentic interpretation of Christianity. What exactly is it that we have in common, again?
46. Dr. Ransom said the following at 1:50 PM on Feb 14
JB, your comment above seems to leave any points in favor of Biblically based ethics and understanding of how Christendom interacts with national politics, completely unaddressed.
What we may have in common is a claim to take the more Biblical approach.
What we do not have in common, though, is accurate theology -- either the "left" perspective is correct, or the "right" perspective is correct. Biblically based reasoning to reinfornce one's position should bear this out -- which is what is occurring here, to some extent.
47. Mandi said the following at 2:17 PM on Feb 14
"And we both claim to represent the best policy options and the most authentic interpretation of Christianity. What exactly is it that we have in common, again?"
JB, you're right to question what we have in common because truth be told, we have very little. One cannot simply slap the label "Christian" or "biblical" on any contention and make it so. This idea that there can be thousands of different, competing but equally valid and true interpretations of God's Word is, with great respect and love, the fruit of fallacious Western Christian thinking, even amongst people with the best intentions. Such practice does not reflect authentic, apostolic teaching that can be traced back through two millenia.
Re our different "approaches" to abortion and gay "marriage", with respect, the "left" offers no evidence to back its claims of non-personhood or equality, while claims of the "right" are completely backed up by evidence.
48. HP said the following at 2:34 PM on Feb 14
Amanda: I would argue that certain environmental and societal factors do in fact FORCE women (people) into certain decisions.
Mandi: Obviously it would be wrong to kill a living person (and for those of you that are so strongly pro-life, I certainly hope you are also anti-death penalty), but you are making the assumption that everyone considers an unborn child a living human.
Dr. Ransom: Is it really necessary to argue the semantics of the phrase "separation of church and state"? My undergraduate degree was in American History and Political Science, and I assure you that I am aware of the origin of the phrase, and how it applies to our government. Let me remind you that Madison was also an early user of this phrase and wrote often of the "total separation of the church from the state". He is also known for saying, "strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States....practical distinction between religion and civil government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States". And Jefferson as writing "Reading, reflection, and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts only in which all religions agree (for all forbid us to steal, murder, plunder, or bear false witness), and that we should not intermeddle with the particular dogmas in which all religions differ, and which are totally unconnected with morality", and also of saying, "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as their religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes". Also, it is a false assumption that Jefferson actually said that the wall of separation between church and state was one directional. David Barton popularized this erroneous belief in his 1989 book, The Myth of Separation.
Now that we are completely off subject...
What I was trying to state in my previous post is that there are much more important issues facing us today - the rising cost of healthcare, the accessibility of healthcare, the rising cost of education, and the Alternative Minimum Tax, to name a few. These issues are encroaching upon the average middle-class family's ability to thrive, or even survive, in today's world. The resolution of these issues is essential to the health of our soceity and it is much more important for me to vote for a candidate that is going to address these issues, rather than just look at his or her stance on abortion or whether or not he or she attends church on a regular basis.
49. Ted Slater said the following at 2:43 PM on Feb 14
HP: I don't mean to be harsh, but your identifying "the rising cost of healthcare, the accessibility of healthcare, the rising cost of education, and the Alternative Minimum Tax" as more important than the life of a preborn child seems a manifestation of 1 Timothy 6:10.
50. Jacob said the following at 2:57 PM on Feb 14
Many people have been suggesting that we should vote for liberals because the government should take care of the poor, etc.
That is wrong.
The Church, not the government, is responsible for caring for the poor, orphaned, widowed and sick. Who do you think took care of people before FDR instituted the socialistic New Deal? Churches and families.
It has been shown elsewhere that conservatives are far more charitable than those who identify themselves as liberals, and the case can be made that this is because the conservatives better understand that it is NOT the responsibility of the government to care for the lowly. While I believe liberals and conservatives alike have forgotten who's job it is, liberal Christians operating on the assumption that the government should give welfare have been encouraging that forgetfulness by not rendering to Church it's rightful duty.
As for whether or not I would vote for Obama, I would have to agree that since he believes that it's ok for people to jab needles into the base of a baby's skull and inject toxic chemicals into it so as to cause death, I will not be voting for him. Abortion is evil, and those who condone it, knowing full well what it entails, are evil. It is brutal and inhumane, so please forgive me if I think it's a little more important than expanding the food stamp programs.
51. Dale said the following at 3:14 PM on Feb 14
Just an interesting article on nationalized healthcare.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/02/14/do_we_want_socialized_medicine
52. Bryant said the following at 3:16 PM on Feb 14
Senator Obama, to me, sounds a lot like the Antichrist as described in several of the end-times prophecies ... something to think about. I will be doing some heavy duty praying and allow GOD to tell me who to vote for.
53. Anna said the following at 3:34 PM on Feb 14
If I may jump in, Ted, I feel that you may be missing HP's point. Certainly there are plenty of people who have abortions for selfish reasons. But let's not forget those women -- who may have been abused, or raised in poverty -- who make a mistake and get pregnant. In a society where it is increasingly difficult to secure health care or decent-paying jobs, is it any wonder why many of these women feel that they have no choice but to have an abortion? Clearly, abortion is a terrible thing. But I would be much more willing to vote for someone who is pro-choice but also has plans to ensure that pregnant women have access to the social, emotional, and economic resources they need to carry a baby to term (and raise him or her for 18 years) than someone who is technically pro-life but favors slashing programs that could mean the difference between being able to support a child or not.
(And please understand, I am certainly not advocating an enormous welfare state, but a bigger safety net would help ensure that women are able to carry their babies to term, and not have to raise them in a life of poverty, often to just continue the cycle again.)
All that being said, I have not yet gotten excited about any of the current candidates, Democrat or Republican. I am reserving judgment until I see more specifics of their various platforms.
One last thing -- I have been really surprised by the vitriolic nature of some of these comments, particularly as regards what sort of Christan Obama is. Only God knows that. Yes, Obama is a sinner, but so am I, and so is everyone who has posted comments about his faith or his church. Maybe a deep breath on everyone's part is in order.
54. Jonathan from Canada said the following at 4:10 PM on Feb 14
Bryant Feb 14 3:16pm: "Senator Obama, to me, sounds a lot like the Antichrist as described in several of the end-times prophecies ..."
That's a little dramatic eh? Bryant, please elaborate. Which prophecies would that be?
55. Anne said the following at 5:16 PM on Feb 14
As both a Christian and a political scientist, I have been saddened by the tone of the conversation thus far.
Let us not forget that party affiliation does not autimatically make one holy or evil.
Party affiliation is how we identify our political ideologies and group ourselves with individuals who think simarlarly with the understanding that there is strength in numbers.
In a nutshel:
Republicans think smaller government means more freedom.
Democrats think larger government helps the little guy.
One is not right, one is not wrong. Both have flaws, both have benifits. Both parties are compassionate but have different means of helping.
But where does that leave abortion. It doesn't fit into the general party ideologies at all.
Neither party is "for Killing" or "for trampling on rights". There is just some disagreement on whose rights count (for lack of a better word)
Pro-life (typically)= life begins at conception and therefor the baby's right to live trumps the mother's right to choose wether or not to spend the next nine months pregnant
Pro-Choice(typically)= life begins at viability or birth (it varies) therefore the mother's right to choose whether or not to be pregnant trumps becuase the embryo or fetus is not protected by the rule of law yet.
I would be interested in hearing what people think about the following:
What are the advantages and disadvantages of larger and smaller governments? Which Presidential Candidates seem to embody the most consistant or logical views on the whole?
How can we as a country reduce the number of abortions that take place? Anyone have ideas? If abortion was to be made illeagle how could we prevent "people from getting them anyway". If making abortion illeagle is a pie in the sky dream, or decades off, how can we promote a modern day 'underground railroad' method of reducing the current abortion rate?
Also, in addtion to abortion what are other 'dealbreaking' issues for people? Would you vote for a racist? A professed communist? An athist? A professed socialist? A draft dodger? Someone being treated for a serous illness? Why or why not. I bet if we thought hard we'd find that there are many issues (whether you're pro-life or pro choice) that would disqualify someone even if you agreed with them on everything else.
And above all, let's try to say it 1 Corinthians 13 style. We can make the most profound statement, but if it is not said in love, it is a claning gong...:(
Happy posting!
56. Dr. Ransom said the following at 5:35 PM on Feb 14
For Anna:
"I have been really surprised by the vitriolic nature of some of these comments, particularly as regards what sort of Christan Obama is. Only God knows that."
True, but discerning followers of Christ have plenty of grounds, both Biblical and common sense, in order to make good guesses. Nowhere in Scripture is such a concept as "don't judge if people are Christians or not" given. Instead, Christ, first of all, was quite direct to judge people by their spiritual results, in Matthew 7. "By their fruit you will recognize them," He told us.
(By way of preemptive rebuttal, nowhere in that chapter does he say "Judge not"; He only forbid hypocritical judgment.)
"Yes, Obama is a sinner, but so am I, and so is everyone who has posted comments about his faith or his church."
Such a perspective seems gracious and helpful, but is actually counterproductive to Christians. We have the unfortunate, but grim responsibility of being Christ's representatives in the world, being "wise as serpents, but gentle as doves," bewaring the "goats" and the "chaff" who claim His Name and claim to be doing all manner of deeds in that Name but will instead be faced with the dread condemnation: "I never knew you. Away from Me, you evildoers!"
Yes, it sounds harsh. And we can still decide, quietly, or even publicly, that certain people, despite their "niceness" or moral behaviors, are not Christians -- without being too nasty about it.
But Christ said these "harsh" things first. He was just as wrathful against nonbelievers as the Old Testatment's portrayal of God -- and His harshest words He reserved for those who claimed to follow God but did *not* truly keep His commandments and love Him.
HP, I have not read David Barton's book and so am unfamiliar with his perspective on what you suppose as only "myth."
Any specific statements by Founding Fathers that seem to support your view are easily rebutted by the same Framers' clear endorsement of, and even involvement in, blatantly Christian actions undertaken by the fledgling federal government.
You've also left unanswered the charge that everyone is religious by nature; again, this is not an issue of government "neutrality" between religions, but of which religous elements the government will endorse (including Secularism).
However, I concur with you that this discussion is just slightly tangential. ;-)
As for whose responsibility it is to keep the poor, I actually have a standing comment about that, over in the "I Appreciate Rich People" item that somehow spun off into this discussion.
57. Mike Theemling said the following at 8:11 AM on Feb 15
Anne brings up a key point which I do agree with: Most people in this country have ONE issue (or maybe a few) which are their own litmus tests for whether or not they will vote for/against a candidate.
I've heard the statistic where 25% of the voting population use a candidate's abortion positon (either for or against) as their ONLY criteria. Others use things like gun control. Others healthcare. Ad infinitum.
These people would probably support someone even if they had other wacky ideas like taxing the homeless or sharing nuclear technology with every other country on earth. Is this rational behavior?
This is in part why we have political parties and platforms. Generally, when you hear someone is affiliated with a party, certain ideas come to mind:
- Republican: Less government involvement, lower taxes, "pro-life" tilt
- Democrat: More government involvement (although they don't call it that), graduated tax system (i.e. taxing the rich [again, they wouldn't say that outright]), "pro-choice" tilt
The problem is that individuals have a lot of variance in this and even party support can relax the standards. Take the last round of midterms where Democrats took control of the Congress. A lot of the Democratic wins were the result of pro-life Democrats who were able to garner votes from traditionally Republican voters because of that key issue.
Of course the problem now is that Democrats will probably be unable to advance any type of "pro-choice" agenda knowing that those victors have constituites to answer to and their margin of victory is razor-thin. It'll be more likely just keeping the status quo which depending upon your views on abortion laws could be good or bad.
Back to the discussion of Obama and other candidates, the key area of contention is, "Is it 'Christian' to support someone who is on a pro-choice platform?" Obviously, there are a lot of Christians who feel it is as the votes the past two presidential elections were in essence 50-50 in popular votes. I think it's inaccurate to say that these people are "sinning", "aren't Biblical", and other scathing accusations. I think it's simply that these Christians have a different "one issue" than others.
J. Budzewski discussed in an article about what to do when both candidates aren't clear favorites; you like part of person A but part of B. He suggested that the "most important issue" (in that particular case it was abortion) trumped whatever else the person stood for. In general I think that's a good idea but I wouldn't make it an absolute rule. There have been some pro-life people out there that were downright scary to think they would be in office.
So I'll close by saying that it's OK to debate the issue but be mindful that it is a hot topic, and that other people have different "one-issues" than your own. For myself, I won't say that I'd never vote for a pro-choice candidate, but I will add that the rest of his/her platform and record better be darn good compared to the competition.
58. Erica said the following at 8:15 AM on Feb 15
The Founding Fathers of the USA came from Europe where the Official Church (Roman Catholics will persecute other christian who did not work as them. At that time in England, the Anglican would put Baptist, Presbrytian, Methodist members in prison or have them killed that why the separation of state and Church were put in your constitution. Can any of you Christians who are argue for a State where the church part an important role will not kill Christians who do not believe as you do. I read once that a doctor who operate an abortion clinic was shot on his way to work by a Christian. Can Christians who are arguing for a religious state guarantee the well being and life of those who don't believe as you do. If the Church and State are united then the Church would use the power to persecute those who don't believe as they do as what happen in countries where Islam is the state religion.
59. Bryant said the following at 9:21 AM on Feb 15
ANNA:
2 Thessalonians 2:5-12 (New International Version)
5Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
60. Amanda said the following at 12:09 PM on Feb 15
People argue that women (especially poor women) don't have a choice in the matter most of the time. That they don't have the money or other reasons so they are forced into abortions. I will always stand by the fact that no one is forced into anything.
Everyone always has choices. Let’s take for instance someone that suddenly finds themselves homeless, pregnant, and moneyless. What could a woman in that instance do? There are shelters she can go into. The local CPC's help women many times like that. Also there is always adoption. A lot of times people adopting will pay the medical bills of the mother and baby until the adoption is final. There are always options.
We are defiantly not getting anywhere arguing about this. I do agree that we need to start concentrating on how we could help our local CPC's and other organizations that educate women on their options.
Someone else did mention praying for God to lead them in the right direction on voting day. That is probably the most important thing anyone can do in this process.
61. Greg said the following at 4:29 PM on Feb 15
There's two parts to this discussion. First, how big a priority is abortion for voters and do they listen to a canidates whole position? One and only? Top 5? What about the general election? It does not good to win the battle and lose the war.
The second is why is abortion such an attractive choice for pregnant woman?
As for the first, it's important for people to do more than just hear the sound bite or read a quick quote. Guliani is pro-choice BUT he would put into place the same kind of judges that GWB has, ones that would likely limit or overturn roe v wade.
As for the second... Christians need to do more to support pregnant women during and after the pregnancy. It's one thing to convince someone to not have an abortion, it's another all together to step up and help her with day care, food, diapers etc. From my view our record is spotty at best, pathetic at worst.
62. Jessica said the following at 6:02 PM on Feb 15
I would never vote for a presidential candidate over any SINGLE issue, and think it's extremely short-sighted to do so. Despite being a self-proclaimed Christian, Bush is not a president I admire, simply because we claim the same faith. As much as they try to spin themselves to be the moral or more Christian party, the Republican party does not have the market on "family values." I am much more concerned about the issues of foreign affairs, financial/budget matters, healthcare, and social programs than I am about a candidate's view on abortion.
63. Leah said the following at 6:38 PM on Feb 15
Actually Dale, the reason the Muslim terrorists attacked the US was because of your endorsement of Israel. Now, I fully agree with that endorsement, I'm just saying that there was something that caused them to attack you.
And while not every southern american is racist, I'm sure Erica was not saying that. Even in Australia, it is known that southern USA is generally more racist than the north. That doesn't automatically mean you *all* are.
And you weren't exactly fair when you said "Also, only a fool believes that if we pull out of Iraq and be good lil Americans that mind our own business then the terrorists will leave us alone." -- essentially calling other people fools. Actually, if you did pull out of all middle east conflict, chances are terrorists would leave you alone. Now I'm not encouraging the US to pull out -- I think going IN to Iraq was stupid, but there are other middle east conflicts where western troops are needed.
And as for the history of muslim terrorists and Christians, I don't think terrorists these days care about that. They're just interested in their own day and age and their own interests. They see the US (and Australia, and Britain) as endorsing their enemies back home, the Israelies. That's their main problem with us.
64. rachel s said the following at 8:47 PM on Feb 15
Leah,
You said in your post that the terrorists would probably leave us alone if we pulled out of Iraq, but then in the very next paragraph, you say that it is because we support Israel that they see us as their enemies. I'm not disagreeing that our support of Israel is one of the problems they have with the US, but if that is there "main problem," wouldn't it follow that even if we did pull out of Iraq, as long as we supported Israel, they would continue to attack us?
65. ag said the following at 10:01 PM on Feb 15
Leah,
Please research the 5 pillars of jihad. Islamic terrorists have called for jihad on the U.S. They have actually stated that U.S. citizens must convert to Islam or die. They do not hate us because of Bush or Iraq. They hate us because we are Christian and not Islamic. One of the operating principles in jihad is "convert or die".
On another note, the current President of Iran is one of the students who overran our embassy in 1978 and took our citizens hostage. As I recall, we were not in Iraq at that time and Bush was not President. In fact, former Presdient Carter, who was no real friend to Isreal, was President at that time.
66. Greg said the following at 10:15 PM on Feb 15
Leah,
If we pull out of Iraq, the terrorists will grow bolder, knowing that they were able to kick us out of the country before the job was finished. One 9/11 attack is quite enough for me.
67. megan said the following at 10:28 PM on Feb 15
This might be a little off topic, so please excuse me for its lengthiness, but I really wanted to share this.
One of my good friends (who incidently is not a Christian, which I think helps to explain)got pregnant. She is very much pro-life, but is only 18 and has no money to raise a child. Her boyfriend, now fiance, has no job. When he found out about the child, he insisted she have an abortion, which she reluctantly agreed to. When she told me, I told her I thought it was wrong, but what mattered most was that I prayed for her, and God graciously answered my prayers. She didn't get the abortion and I thank God for His miracle.
The point of this story is though, that while it might be fine to speak through our voting, ultimately it will come down to the influence of individuals, not a generalized law. No matter how much laws put us on the right track, ultimately it is our decision whether or not we should obey them. While using our influence at the polls is good, maybe we should focus on helping nonbelievers in our lives become believers so that there won't be such a big deal about abortion. I realize this post sounds a little naive, but I really do have hope that my friend will become a Christian, and even one lost little lamb matters.
68. BDB said the following at 11:49 PM on Feb 15
On Legislating morality...
When you go to visit Washington D.C. and go to the Lincoln Memorial, there are two speeches engraved in the walls. One is the Gettysburg Address. The other is Lincoln's second inaugural speech, where he refers to slavery as sin, and suggests that the Civil War was due to the reality that the price of sin is blood.
All democracies attempt to legislate morality. This is for the simple reason that choices have consequences, and different people don't want to be impacted by the choices made by others - or they want to be excused from the consequences of their own choices. The laws against drunk driving are legislating morality - and the laws were pushed by families who had loved ones killed by drunk drivers. Two months ago I was at a funeral for a 27 year old killed by a drunk driver at 8am, leaving his widow a single mother.
Putting the driver in jail won't bring back the kid he killed, but maybe it will prevent him from killing again.
69. Leah said the following at 12:23 AM on Feb 16
ag, I have learnt about islam from Christians who specialise in evanglising muslims (ie. it's their job). The 5 pillars do not specify that the US is an enemy- the pillars were established long before the US existed. Not to mention, the Quran actually bans killing women and children. Perhaps you should research Islam a bit more?
Yes, Muslim terrorists have called for jihad on the US, for whatever reason. I also never said Iraq was the reason for the terrorism. 9/11 happened before Iraq.
Whether individual presidents or not were friends of Israel (and I don't say this is the *only* reason, just a big one) doesn't change the terrorists' attitude that the western world supports Israel.
And I heard this from an Egyptian man who had converted from Islam to Christianity. Not to mention, I'm sure that terrorists' reasons for terrorism change all the time, especially over the period from the 70s to now.
Rachel, I didn't say that. I said, if the US pulled out of ALL middle eastern conflict. Pulling out of Iraq, I believe, wouldn't do anything. And I didn't say the terrorism WOULD stop, just probably.
Greg, I never said we should pull out of Iraq. See my above comment. I said it wasn't smart to go in in the first place. Read what I say more closely.
70. Ed McCabe said the following at 7:57 AM on Feb 16
John McCain and his wife Cindy adopted a dark skinned girl to keep her from being slautered in India. The "Chistian Right Bob Jones crowd was so anious to get thier boy George elected, days before the South Carolina primary spead a roumour that War Hero Senator John McCain had an affair with a black woman-producing that poor girl. And after beating Bush (who by the way ducked debate after debate) lost New Hampshire by 19% to McCain. McCain's forgiven the Religios Right but If he dosen't get the nomination this time, God may not punish you But I'm voting for the Democrat.
71. Mandi said the following at 9:34 AM on Feb 16
Re: sharing the Gospel with non-believers
This cannot be done if non-believers cannot let go of their moral relativism. After all, if someone is unwilling or unable to accept that some things are simply false, wrong, or sinful (like killing unborn children), how would they accept that our Lord Jesus Christ is not "a" way, "a" truth and "a" life but THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life?
Of course, that is not to say that the ability to relate to God is related to one's intellectual capacity. It's not. The unborn child John the Baptist, as the Gospel tells us, was able to recognize his Lord and Saviour within his mother's womb, having the intellectual capacity of a six-month old "fetus". It was God's Spirit that enabled him to know God.
But no person who's pro-abortion is an unborn child.
As the renowned pro-life apologist and public speaker Scott Klusendorf says, "'When we talk about abortion, we are doing very important pre-evangelism in reshaping their world-view....If you convince a person that the pro-life position is morally true, you’ve moved them away from moral relativism. If you bring them to the point where they believe in objective truth, you’ve moved them very close to looking at Christ....'
72. EM said the following at 9:47 AM on Feb 16
If more people could read Arabic, Islam could be properly understood.
And I wish people would read about what has happened to civilizations that have almost been wiped off the planet because of the tenets of Islam, long before the USA existed.
Please don't flatter yourselves into thinking that what you say or do has created this problem. Wisdom (not appeasement) in dealing with this enemy is required, of course. But understand this foe, please. Otherwise, you at the very least deny or belittle the atrocities suffered by entire populations of people before you whose only crimes were faith in Christ, not disagreements on foreign policy.
73. Greg said the following at 12:44 PM on Feb 16
Leah,
Hmmm I think we're miscommunicating here. I did read your post a couple times before commenting, I think I'm guilty of poor word choice.
What I am trying to say is that if we pull out of Iraq, terrorism would increase rather than decrease.
"Actually, if you did pull out of all middle east conflict, chances are terrorists would leave you alone."<-That is what you wrote.
That's where I disagree with you. They won't leave us alone unfortuanately. They'll continue their attacks on the US. Isreal is certainly part of it but their ultimate goal is to convert everyone to their twisted brand of Islam, by any means necessary.