{"id":1596,"date":"2009-03-21T09:40:45","date_gmt":"2009-03-21T13:40:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stonescryout.org\/?p=1596"},"modified":"2009-03-21T09:40:45","modified_gmt":"2009-03-21T13:40:45","slug":"obama-disappointment-among-his-evangelical-supporters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stonescryout.org\/?p=1596","title":{"rendered":"Obama Disappointment Among His Evangelical Supporters"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>Although the majority of evangelical Chrisians voted for John McCain in 2008, Christian leaders I’ve talked to said that it was the Obama campaign that did a far better job courting the evangelical community.\u00a0 Obama seemed to better understand and relate to evangelicals, and indeed, far more voted for the Democratic ticket than in previous presidential elections.\u00a0Now, writes evangelical ethicist David Gushee\u00a0of Mercer Univeristy, Obama’s action on life\u00a0issues\u00a0has disappointed the evangelicals who supported him.<\/p>\n

Gushee writes in USA Today:<\/a><\/p>\n

What has occurred are a series of disappointingly typical Democratic abortion-related moves:<\/p>\n

\u00a0First, the new president followed precedent by overturning the so-called Mexico City policy<\/a>, which basically had withheld U.S. Agency for International Development funding from any organization that discusses, advocates or provides abortion as a method of family planning. Republicans withhold the money; Democrats provide it. Not great, but predictable. I stayed quiet on this one.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Next, Obama revoked the “provider refusal” rule<\/a> that President Bush promulgated by executive order very late in his presidency. The stated aim of this rule was to protect medical professionals from being forced as a condition of employment to provide health care services or information about services, such as abortion or contraception, that violated their consciences. Provider-conscience exceptions related to abortion are not new; the concern from the pro-choice side was that Bush’s version of that rule had become too broad. Concluding that the basic idea of conscience exceptions was probably safe, I stayed quiet again.<\/p>\n

Then the president nominated Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius<\/a> to be head of the massive Department of Health and Human Services. The nomination of Sebelius, a Catholic whose bishop has condemned her stance on abortion<\/a>, has gotten entangled in both national and Catholic abortion politics. Her opponents argue that she is a pro-choice extremist<\/a>; her allies say she is a conscientious Catholic who has reduced abortion by 10% in Kansas. I signed on to a statement<\/a> that was viewed as offering uncritical support for Sebelius. What I meant to say was that given the inevitability that Obama would choose a pro-choice HHS secretary, it seemed positive he would pick one with an abortion-reduction track record. I wish I had stayed out of this one, too.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Finally, last week Obama signed his long-promised reversal of Bush policies on embryonic stem cell research<\/a>. Again, this was not a surprise, either politically or, sadly, morally. A country that is willing to permit the destruction of a fetus at five months, when that destroyed fetus can provide no conceivable utilitarian benefit to society, is certainly going to permit the destruction of a leftover frozen embryo on the promise that it can contribute to medical breakthroughs someday.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He adds:<\/p>\n

My understanding of the majestic God-given sacredness of human life tells me that a society that legally permits abortion on demand is deeply corrupt. It pays for adult sexual liberties with the lives of defenseless developing children. That practice, in turn, desensitizes society to the implications of paying for prospective medical cures with defenseless frozen embryos, which themselves are available because our society pays for medically assisted reproductive technology by producing hundreds of thousands of these embryos as spares. And yes, that same commitment to life’s sacredness has grounded my opposition to paying for national security with torture, or paying for today’s affluence with tomorrow’s environmental destruction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Gushee is a thoughtful and principled evangelical centrist who is profoundly disappointed in a politician who appealed on\u00a0the possiblilities of compromise producing some movement on\u00a0life\u00a0issues,\u00a0but has not only failed to deliver on promises, but advanced policies that are totally contrary to the protection of life.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Hope unfulfilled.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Although the majority of evangelical Chrisians voted for John McCain in 2008, Christian leaders I’ve talked to said that it was the Obama campaign that did a far better job courting the evangelical community.\u00a0 Obama seemed to better understand and relate to evangelicals, and indeed, far more voted for the Democratic ticket than in previous […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,26,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1596","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-jim","category-politics","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t