As I noted in this post at my New Covenant blog, Princeton bioethicist Robert George, in his article Obama’s Abortion Extremism, stated,

That post, and the follow-up A Comprehensive argument against Barack Obama, were intended to expose Obama’s truly pro-abortion position, for any non-Christians that may have stumbled upon this site. Imagine my surprise when, the very week after I posted, I found myself in an argument with a Christian friend who adamantly considers Obama to have a distinctly pro-choice position.

I was astounded to hear my friend, a professor with probably close to 40 years in academia, make (what I consider) arguments typically promulgated by liberals and liberals within academia. Perhaps, in retrospect, given the fact that my friend has spent so much time within academia, regardless of whether or not it was secular academia, I should not have been surprised to hear liberal arguments.

Initially, I was informed that Obama was pro-choice and not pro-abortion. Upon my asking what the difference was I was given the argument that Obama is “personally opposed to abortion, but…”. I was about to offer the suggestion that one take that same personally opposed statement and substitute the word “slavery” or “rape” for “abortion”, and then see how absurd it sounds, but I was immediately informed that Obama has said he would sign on to a ban of partial birth abortions would they only offer an exception for cases of rape or incest. (note: Robert George’s article shreds such claims. More on that later.) I was then told that it was essentially not pro-life to allow a woman with an ectopic pregnancy to die rather than remove (abort) the “fetus”.

Do you see the problem with these arguments? They play with words (e.g., “personally opposed”). They use the exception as determiner of the rule (e.g., cases of rape or incest). They ignore the humanity of the unborn (e.g., referring to the unborn child as a “fetus”).

In further conversation with my friend, attempts were made to compare the devastation of the war in Iraq as not indicative of the Republicans truly having a pro-life position. Of course this is nothing more than diversion. Even if such a claim were true, how does that, I wonder, have anything to do with the devastating fact that 4,000 unborn children are aborted every day?

I was given this website to refer to as, supposedly, an objective basis for determining the position of Obama. I noted, to no response, that the website makes multiple references to Obama supporting a “woman’s right to choose”, yet never completes the statement (i.e., a woman’s right to choose to kill her unborn child).

I offered the article by Robert George, an article by Steve Wagner (Stand to Reason), as well as the National Right to Life Committee’s recent interaction with Barack Obama, as information outlets to help one understand Obama’s actions with regards to the abortion issue. Unfortunately, my friend considers third-party sources to be hopelessly biased and, as a result, would not even reference my recommendations, preferring to simply listen to what each candidate states themselves.

Are there other Christians who have turned a blind eye to the actions of Barack Obama with regards to the abortion issue? Are there other Christians who don’t view the issue of abortion as a major concern?

Greg Koukl, in his Oct. 20th weekly radio show, recently stated (28:30 into the program),

It seems to me, based on what Robert George has written, the lesson is this: If you are radically pro-choice, Obama is your man. But, if you think that abortion in all its forms, the garden variety of abortion, plus partial birth abortion, plus large scale production and destruction of embryos for embryonic stem cell research, plus allowing babies who survive abortion to die, plus having the government pay for all of this with your tax dollars – If you think this is wrong, because of the wanton destruction of defenseless human life. Then it seems to me you better invest your vote elsewhere. And if you believe God cares about these things, I don’t know how you can vote for Obama, and then stand before God and say, “I made the good, right, moral choice…”

If you are not aware of the candidate Barack Obama’s actions, with regards to abortion, I invite you to take a look at the data presented by Robert P. George, and see how it squares up with the statements made by the candidate Obama. It should be (painfully) clear that Obama is no friend of the unborn.

 I am a political animal and a news junkie.  But after years of the 2008 presidential contest, I’m oh-so-weary of the all of the calculated and practiced rhetoric.

After all of the overblown predictions and warnings and promises, we are all a bit guilty of the “political illusion” that politics, the right government, and the right policies will bring social harmony, spiritual enlightenment, world peace, better baseball, and a panacea for whatever ill inflicts our personal lives. 

On Tuesday we will either have a historic comeback that ranks with Truman/Dewey, or a historic mixed race president.  But at least this campaign will be done and the next chapter of American life will begin. We’ve had early voting in Georgia this week and the lines at the polling places here in the northern suburbs of Atlanta have been very long.  A lot of people are voting early, which either indicates an unprecedented high voter turnout, or a lot fewer people voting on election day.

I will be voting for the McCain-Palin ticket, which is running only slightly ahead here in Georgia—obviously not a good sign for Republicans in the deep south, where they should be comfortably ahead.

A few observations as we await the election on Tuesday:

·         If the Democratic Party does not capture the presidency next week, it will be in enormous disarray and its ability to win nationally will be in question for years.  If the Dems don’t win with the war in Iraq souring the country before we began to prevail, with the economy dragging and now crashing, with the failure of the Bush administration to maintain even a drumbeat of enthusiasm in its second term, and with a smooth talking and careful candidate—the Democratic Party will need to make wholesale change (which would be good). 

·         The Republican Party doesn’t deserve to win, and is preferable only in comparison to the horrendous policies of its opponents.

·         Sarah Palin was brilliant choice for an underdog candidate who was not supported by the base of his party (unfairly, I believe, and if McCain loses I place partial blame squarely at the feet of the pouting conservatives, who failed to rally early and often, and evidently decided until recently to wait for the perfect candidate in four years). 

·         If Obama becomes president, he will work with a very Democratic congress for the most liberal agenda in our memory.  But Pelosi and Reid haven’t shown much political skill or even a shred of subtlety in their governing, and together with an enthusiastic young President they will totally overplay their hand—even worse than the first two years of Bill Clinton—and if the Republicans can find a leader in the mold of Newt Gingrich, they can lead a new contract for America in 2010 and begin recapturing the Congress.

·         If Obama becomes president, there will be many bad policies, but bad policy can be reversed.

·         The greatest concern for me of an Obama presidency is the reshaping of the Supreme Court over four or eight years into a solidly liberal, activist court for the next generation.  I cannot begin to recite here all of the ways that will fray the fabric and character of American life.

·         My second greatest concern is that America’s military and intelligence capabilities will be compromised by another president (like Clinton) who doesn’t’ believe that peace is the result of strength, not by playing nice with evil.  I don’t think Obama will pull troops out of Iraq prematurely or make rash military changes that will endanger America immediately—sitting in the Oval office will sober him up and moderate his radical isolationism.   The damage will come over time and the danger is long term weakness.

·         The economy will recover, because that’s what it does, but if Obama is elected the recovery will be muted by the overtaxing of the engines of American wealth–the productive, the successful, and the businesses. 

·         There is going to be massive voter fraud throughout the country that should—but probably won’t—result in the national requirement of photo ID’s for anyone who votes.  The stories that emerge about Acorn and others will stretch on for years.  And if the election is close, we may see far more law suits than in 2000. 

But maybe McCain-Palin will mount a historic comeback.  Wouldn’t that be a blast?  I do think it is quite possible, but not likely. 

One thing I fear if Mr McCain wins as compared to a possible victory in by Mr Obama. If Mr McCain wins, I think the left will go absolutely insane. If Mr Obama wins on the other hand, my impression is that conservatives (such as myself) will just hunker down for 4 years of bad policy, increased racial tensions, higher taxes, and other similear consequences of electing an inexperienced academic to the the Presidency. But … if you thought the left and their BDS was a problem for national discourse on Mr Bush’s re-election I fear such anger will increase far more if Mr McCain wins this election.

So, to that point, I’ll take a comment survey. If the “other guy” wins, what would be your dominant emotional response.

For the record, I think mine would be, the “oh, crap” sensation when standing near or in striking range of a tottering shelf or pile.

In the realm of alternate electoral methods, the somewhat “out there” novel Courtship Rite by (if I recall the mathematician) Donald Kingsbury. In this science fiction novel set an a colonized planet quite a number of customs have arisen among the humans living there that are very alien to our customs today. One of the societies, from which a number of our protagonists derive, for example practices polygamy as well as cannibalism. There is actually a logical reason for the latter, being that on this alien world most animal and plant life is poisonous to the colonists … and there is no meat available other than man for consumption. Anyhow, that is not the point for today’s little essay. Given the current season and year in the States it might be more topical to offer some of Mr Kingsbury’s unusual suggestions for government.

In an age where the Democrats urge universal (and in fact arguably foreign) enfranchisement and participation in our elections the suggestion in Courtship Rite is quite the reverse. The radical society in that culture was a full participatory democracy … with a catch. On laws, one could only vote on their passing if one was an expert on that particular law. How did one become an expert. By becoming a participant in the discussions involved in framing the text of that law and in discussion on its merits, consequences, and implementation. Anybody could vote on any issue and law, but in order to vote, one had to become knowledgeable and and expert in that.

Further, the executive as well as selected in another manner. Mr Kingsbury suggests essentially that one of the primary qualities this society felt was necessary in a leader or the executive was to be able to accurately predict the unfolding of political and global political trends. People who wished to become executive submitted to a repository, dated predictions of future events. There was likely some (but the details of implementation were left to the reader) weighting of predictions based on the importance of the event and how far in advance the prediction was posted. Whomever had the highest score at this “prediction” game was the Executive. Any citizen could call for a “re-tally” like a vote of no-confidence and possibly in that way remove the current leader. Of course, one way to get predictions to come true, is to make predictions and then work to make them come true. In this way, the Executive very often had a good deal of influence which enabled him to have his predictions fall in line.

This is the 2nd and final part of my analysis of an open letter from Anne Rice. Part 1 was posted yesterday.

Abortion

Anne Rice spends most of her letter covering this issue, and she starts with an assertion that, to me, shows a lack of consideration of the history of the issue.

I want to add here that I am Pro-Life. I believe in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Deeply respecting those who disagree with me, I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party.

Ms. Rice does touch on these historical issues lightly later on, and I’ll hit them more in-depth then, but even looking at how the abortion issue generally falls between the parties today, I don’t see this as making sense. What I hear from Democrats are things like John Kerry with this sentiment:

I completely respect their views. I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views. But I disagree with them, as do many. I can’t legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn’t share that article of faith. I believe that choice is a woman’s choice. It’s between a woman, God and her doctor. That’s why I support that. I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade.

If one’s commitment to Christianity should be “absolute”, as Ms. Rice has said, there is a big problem with this statement, that is generally the line religious Democrats use when talking about abortion, and that is the canard about legislating one’s religious faith, or sometimes call ramming one’s religion down your throat. Civil rights are very much a moral issue, but does Sen. Kerry have the same problem with legislating that? No, he’s very willing to impose his view on KKK members, and rightly so. It’s right, it’s moral and it’s the law. Legislators all throughout our country’s history, and more so in our early history, based many of their decisions partly or mostly on their religious faith. This excuse is disingenuous.

Read the rest of this entry

The following is a repost of a blog post I wrote over a year ago (August 23rd & 24th, 2007) during the presidential primary season.  It was in response to an open letter by the author Anne Rice on her personal web site.  Ms. Rice is the author of the Vampire Lestat series of books, but, after returning to the Catholic church in 1998, stopped that project. 

I’ve searched her web site for the letter in question and cannot find a page that has it archived, although many of her other writings, going back to 1996, are on there.  It was copied and posted on other forums, including here, so you can read along at home.  (Warning: This is a link to the right-wing Free Republic web site.  If you fear cooties emanating from there, turn back now.)

I think the issues covered in this endorsement of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic party nominee are still relevant now, especially how it relates to Christians, how they can and should work through the political process, how Ms. Rice believes her choice of party advances that, and where I disagree with her. 

It was originally posted in 2 parts due to its length, and so it shall be this time. 

This is one of my longer posts, possibly the longest I’ve done on the blog. What happened was, I was reading an open letter from a Christian planning on voting a particular way, and as I read further and further into it, one objection after another kept coming to my mind, and one problem after another regarding the writer’s reasons kept getting in the way. Finally, I realized I’d have to just set aside some of my typical day-to-day blogging of the link-and-quick-comment type, and go in-depth into the problems I see with the author, and Christians in general, who vote Democratic for specifically Christian reasons, and especially regarding the social issues brought up in the letter. Pull up a cup of coffee and sit back.

Anne Rice is a Catholic author. I’ll admit to not being too well-read, but as a Protestant my knowledge of Catholic authors is even more limited. Therefore, I’m not sure how much Ms. Rice’s views are mainstream Catholic, although whether or not they are really isn’t the crux of this post. I do want to discuss the views she espouses, and espouses quite well as an author. That she is a Catholic and I am a Protestant has really no bearing on my criticism of her recent public letter dated August 10. I know Protestants who would agree with her on these issues, so this is not a denominational thing. She professes Christianity, as do I, and we have very similar goals, as far as I can tell, on the topics she discusses, and yet we’re voting differently. Ms. Rice wrote a lengthy letter to her readers on her main web site (no permalink so don’t know how long it’ll stay on the front page) about why she is endorsing Hillary Clinton for President. The reasons she lists for that endorsement, to me, run completely counter to her list of important issues and goals. If she is truly concerned about those goals, I don’t follow her endorsement, nor the endorsement of other of my friends and acquaintances of any Democrat in the current group. I want to address the inconsistencies I see in this post.

Ms. Rice starts out with her Christian and Catholic creds, which I respect and am willing to accept. She talks about how, while the separation of church and state is a good idea, the voter does not have that prohibition, and in fact must consider their vote based on their religion.

Conscience requires the Christian to vote as a Christian. Commitment to Christ is by its very nature absolute.

I agree wholeheartedly. But, she also correctly notes, we have only 2 political parties in this country. (She believes, as do I, that a vote for neither Democrat or Republican, whether it’s a non-vote or a vote for a 3rd party, is essentially a vote for one of the two major ones, no matter how you slice it.) In short:

To summarize, I believe in voting, I believe in voting for one of the two major parties, and I believe my vote must reflect my Christian beliefs.

Bearing all this in mind, I want to say quietly that as of this date, I am a Democrat, and that I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

And that last clause is where the disagreement begins.

Charitable Giving

The first paragraph of explanation deals with giving.

Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels. Those values are most intensely expressed for me in the Gospel of Matthew, but they are expressed in all the gospels. Those values involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving ones neighbors and loving ones enemies. A great deal more could be said on this subject, but I feel that this is enough.

First of all, neither the religious right nor the religious left have a lock on charitable giving. At the same time, as was noted on this post regarding a study by Arthur Brooks, conservatives outgive liberals by quite a significant amount. How does this relate to how the political parties differ in their view of the government’s role in this? Ms. Rice, I believe, falls into a trap by simplistically equating the advocacy of government charity with Jesus’ admonition to the individual to be charitable. Democrats say the government should give more, so by her reckoning thy are more in line with her Christian view. However, it has always made me wonder how when Jesus tells me, personally, to be charitable, that somehow this means that I should also use the government to force my neighbor, under penalty of jail, to be “charitable”. I put “charitable” in quotes because when there’s force involved, there’s no real act of charity. How Democrat Christians get from point A to point Z on this boggles my mind. Another statistic from Brooks’ study brings this point home; People who believe the government does not have a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can’t take care of themselves are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

On top of this, the bureaucratic inefficiency filter that we’re all forced to funnel our “charitable” taxes through siphons money away from the needy, as does the massive fraud that goes on in a big government program that has little accountability.

Conservatives believe that forcibly taking money isn’t charity, and that it is not government’s role to rob from Peter to pay Paul, and that the way the government handles this creates dependency and causes further problems, like giving fathers a disincentive to stick around. Because of this, conservatives give more of their own money to local charities where the administrative costs are much lower. The Republican party, the current home of most conservative political ideas in this country, purports to support these goals, and while they don’t always follow those principles, they have done better at this than Democrats. An expanded role of government in the area of giving to the poor is not the best way for that to happen, and as a Christian I believe it’s not moral to force others to give when they don’t want to. Again, Jesus asks me to give; He didn’t ask me to force others to.

Ms. Rice, in ticking off a laundry list of values, seems to be falling for the framing of the issue that Democrats have put forth; welfare = caring. There are other ways to care, which can have much better results.

Part 2 tomorrow.

While surfing around on a few sites tonight I ran across an ad for the Barack Obama Test. The premise of this test is to help you determine how your views match up on key issues with Senator Obama.

It didn’t surprise me all that much that I disagreed with Senator Obama on every single issue. I’m a conservative and the Senator is extremely liberal.

But what surprised me more was what else I learned from the results. After you answer all 48 questions you not only get to see how your answers match up with Senator Obama but you also get to see how other Americans responded to the same questions. The poll questions were pulled together from several issues-oriented opinion polls that have been conducted throughout the campaign. On every single question, more respondents took a contrary view on the issue to Senator Obama’s.

I’ve long thought that this election was more about personality than about issues. Voters seem to like Senator Obama more even though ideologically they don’t line up with him.

Take the test for yourself and see. Just click the button below.

Early voting seems to be all the rage these days.  People were standing for hours (and, here in Atlanta, in the rain) to cast their ballot before November 4th.  Have you done this, do you plan to do this, or will you be voting on the first Tuesday of November (the way the good Lord intended…OK, not really)?

And do you think this is a good idea?  Hey, it’s been suggested that the official voting day should be a Saturday, not a Tuesday, so why not?  On the other hand, does this invite more opportunity for voter fraud?  Let us know what you think

It seems there is another connection for the “Mr Obama is a socialist” notion. He was a socialist is a factual statement. He was a member of the Alaskan separatist “A New Party” political party at one time. Wiki defines their political orientation taxonomically as following the ideas of “social democracy” which might be summarized as:

The nature of social democracy has changed throughout the decades since its inception. Historically, social democratic parties advocated socialism in the strict sense, achieved by class struggle. In the early 20th century, however, a number of socialist and labor parties rejected revolution and other traditional forms of Marxism and went on to take more moderate positions, which came to form modern social democracy. These positions often include support for a democratic welfare state which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism, sometimes termed the mixed economy or the social market economy.^[2] This differs from traditional socialism, which aims to end the predominance of capitalism and replace it with a worker-controlled economic system. Social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the social injustice and inefficiencies they see as inherent in capitalism.

So it may be that he is not today a socialist, he however certainly has been one in the past.

Mrs Palin’s $150k wardrobe (a reasonable explanation here btw) or Mr Obama’s $150k faux-Greek stage setting for his acceptance speech? Both? Neither?

Update: Actuallly, the $150k for the stage was low. Apparently of the $14 million spent on the Denver stadium acceptance speech event $4.3 million was for lighting and stage settings. It is unclear how much went in to the actual stage setting.

An article by Tara Ross at DoubleThink magazine is a very revealing look into the history of the mixing of church and politics, and the misnomer of "separation of church and state".  From Thomas Jefferson’s mistaken view of the matter to how unintended consequences from a Lyndon Johnson decision introduced the idea that politics and the pulpit don’t mix, this is a good history lesson for those that think things were always this way.

They weren’t.