As much as I’ve tried to avoid it, political news, gossip, issues, dilemmas, debates, scandals; politics is everywhere. I voted in my states primaries last Tuesday and recognized that although we tend to recognize that local elections and government officials have a far greater impact on our day to day life than who is president, we don’t really educate ourselves on what local candidates to vote for (what’s an Associate Justice do anyways?). That’s only been one of my latest questions that has arisen. I’ve made an effort to listen intently to people I respect on both sides of the aisle (including that third side that wants to abstain from voting), listening to people far more politically knowledgeable and wise then me have caused a lot of questions to raise in my mind. Ones I haven’t found answers for.
So, I’d like to employ your help. These are questions, not arguments for or against. Just things that have begun to arise in my questioning of politics on both sides of things. They aren’t an exhaustive list, but they are what have been on my mind. Remember, the stakes are high. I’ve got one vote.
For the Republican leaning folks…
- It seems to be the same religious right that wants to enforce their moral code of outlawing gay marriage, bringing prayer back to schools, outlawing abortion and teaching creationism are also huge fans of Sarah Palin. But, aren’t a lot of those religious right folks also against women in leadership (in the church)? Why do they believe so many of their religious moral codes extend to politics and society, and yet their views on women in leadership don’t? (I’m not saying women shouldn’t be in leadership, I’m just saying it seems like a double standard or a lack of consistent application of the principles they seem to uphold)
- Also, regarding inconsistencies, how a group can be so “pro-life” but support things like war and capital punishment? And I’d maybe through global poverty in to the mix too.
For you democrat-leaners…
- I’m all about caring for the poor and loving our neighbor and all that, I think it’s one of our primary callings as people of faith. However, I’m starting to wonder if there is a biblical justification or even legitimate Christian argument for encouraging our government to carry out those needs? I know the church isn’t doing its job, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the government should.
- The Democrats, along with the nominee, have been cast as heartless baby-killers, and though I don’t think that’s the truth, it makes it difficult to find a thoughtful explanation for some of the decisions being made in the liberal camp. For both those who believe life starts at conception and those that don’t, are there concise and thoughtful explanations for supporting the democratic platform? What about explanations as to why Obama voted against the Born Alive bill (basically I’m looking for a response to this)?
These are serious and legitimate questions, I’m not trying to trap anyone, I’m really just trying to understand. So, feel free to leave a comment below, or email me directly with your responses. Thanks.
Here’s a video with Obama’s response to the Born Alive bill http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/429328.aspx
Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?
Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.
The other email rumor that’s been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.
Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn’t provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.
THis was from an interview in Relevant Magazine
I’m not sure I would officially consider myself a democrat, but I lean in that direction in some cases. Anyway, in response to this
I don’t really see a separation between government, church and people in the call/command to love our neighbor. I think we are called to do that through whatever resources we command, whether through government or outside of it.
Good questions… I’m not going to try and answer them, but my wife and I had some interesting discussions the other day and we ended up poking some major holes in the worldview of “true conservatism” and “true liberalism” or maybe pure is a better word than true. How can a true conservative advocate that the government should ban abortion or homosexual marriage? Isn’t conservatism all about small/less government control in our lives? I’m more familiar with the conservative perspective but also the liberal let anything go idea doesn’t work well with things like national security, etc. Nor does their hatred for all things Christian seem to fit with their let everyone do what they want.
I have wondered some of the same things. I can’t speak for the democrats as a whole, nor Obama’s opinion on abortion. But perhaps I can share my perspective on the issue.
I think we all have to recognize that, whether legal or not, abortions will happen. There will be women who are raped, who are victims of incest, who had birth control fail, or one night made a really, really poor decision for themselves who will choose not to have a baby that they are carrying.
If abortions are made illegal, they will happen in dangerous and detrimental ways. Many women who attempt to cause themselves to abort or who receive illegal abortion procedures may die or be permanently damaged by the process. Abortions will become something to be bought and sold underground, and the people practicing them will not be regulated. On the whole, making abortions illegal creates a new threat to public health and safety.
I believe that we can make abortions both legal and discouraged. I agree that abortion can be a tragic choice to make, and that it should only be seriously considered alongside other options (such as adoption) and only in cases where it is really, truly, unrealistic for the woman to bear and/or raise the child.
At least if it remains legal, when abortion does need to be the choice that is made, it can be done in a safe, regulated way, where we can require that women seeking an abortion be educated and counseled on the ramifications of that choice. And hopefully we can continue to work on the social issues and resources available to make it a less frequent occurrence.
wish i had time to write a comment today. ariah – if you happen to have what I wrote you about conservatives and women in leadership, i would not mind you posting, or if you could forward to me then i would post it.
thanks –
ok fine i’ll say one thing:
Obama’s explanation of his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act is full of holes, and is not really the whole truth. If you read the transcripts of the discussions over the bill when it was up for consideration in his committee and in the Illinois senate, he did not oppose it because he thought there were sufficient laws on the books, or because he was afraid it would be struck down. There are redundant laws passed all the time, and there are courageous lawmakers who make a stand in spite of threats of the overturning of their laws where they think the basis for overturning is unjust. The truth is that he opposed it (read the transcripts) because he feared that it would infringe in some way on a woman’s right to choose abortion. Period. He was the only state senator to oppose it at all.
Whether you are otherwise comfortable with his pro-choice stance or not, you really should know exactly where he stands, and how far he is willing to go on it. He is not a guy who just says women should be able to choose and that ppl who feel it is basically murder should stand aside – he is a guy who will FIGHT for a woman’s right to choose abortion. Those are two different things in my mind.
Ariah, I don’t have the answers to your questions just yet, but I wanted to point out that I share in your struggle to decide which way to vote.
I have find myself finding problems with both camps and I don’t know what would be the best way to vote come November.
The main thing that I’m conflicted by — I too care about the poor, as you know, but I also have a problem with the belief that it’s the government’s responsibility.
I think Obama’s plans are unrealistic, but I also think the no-tax/no-program answer of the republicans is also unrealistic.
I believe in accountability from the government, but I also believe in the value of personal responsibility.
I know I will have to make a decision, but I think at this point we just have to make do with the things we can control — our time and service toward others.
I’ll agree also that these questions are hard for Christians. I see and feel the conflicts that Ariah points out. If you want to see government help the poor, then you also have to vote in favor of the celebration of moral wrongs like the celebration of (not just a libertarian approach to) abortion and promiscuity of all kinds, and an aversion to serious religious belief. If you want to protect unborn children from abortion and your young children from being taught things you disagree with in public schools, then you have to also vote against what you may perceive as helpful programs for the poor. It’s tough.
I come down on the side of voting to protect the innocent and to keep gov’t out of my life and my wallet as much as possible so that I can do what I think is best for myself and others, rather than having government try to do that, since it is inefficient at best and corrupt at worst.
I will try and come back later on this discussion. Good questions, Ariah. Good points made all around.
Peace,
Jamie
Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts, I really appreciate it.
@Aaron: I read the transcript (at least the one I could find) and it didn’t seem contradictory from what I could tell. I mean he’s said he supports Roe v. Wade and he felt this was an attempt to undermine that and wasn’t worthwhile because it’d be struck down. That’s my impression. Actually, let me include what I found here for further discussion. Feel free to post other transcripts if you have something different…
Okay, turns out I couldn’t crop his comments out of the transcript, but I found them online here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802050010
Which was regarding a misqoute in a Washington Times article
Here’s the quote:
Yet in the quote that the Times referenced, Obama was asserting that the bill, sponsored by Republican state Sen. Patrick O’Malley, was unconstitutional because it would “define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution” and therefore represent a de facto restriction on all abortions. From Obama’s March 30, 2001, statement on the Illinois Senate floor:
OBAMA: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.
Additionally, Obama listed a “second reason” in his floor statement that the proposed law was “unconstitutional” — it would “plac[e] a burden on the doctor” that would prevent many facilities from having the resources necessary to perform abortions:
OBAMA: The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as — as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.
Obama also said: “I think it’s important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and — and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a — a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re going much further than that in this bill.”
Ariah –
Don’t forget that Mediamatters is a liberal organization, and therefore supports and defends Obama. In other words, I would not consider them an impartial source.
As a counterpoint, consider what redstate.com had to say about it. They are conservative. I don’t agree, btw, that he was intentionally supporting infanticide. However, he was not supporting going the extra mile to be sure babies who survived abortion were given care either, quite clearly.
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/aug/20/heres-the-audio-of-obama-endorsing-infantici/
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/aug/21/in-2002-barack-obama-supported-infanticide-a/
Read it all, but here is an important part:
“Obama has made several points, which we should recount.
First, Obama claimed doctors must render the care away. As David Freddosso has regularly pointed out, that was not true.
In fact, the Illinois Attorney General determined that doctors were under no such obligation when a child, born alive, had been intended to be aborted. Doctors only had the obligation to give life sustaining treatment when it was intended that the child be born alive.
Obama, then claimed his concern related to there being no language protecting Roe v. Wade in the legislation. He told the Chicago Tribune as much in October of 2004. In fact, that has been his story the whole time.
This week, the story changed. This week, NRLC proved conclusively that the legislation did, in fact, protect Roe v. Wade.
Obama has now changed his story yet again. Now he says that, regardless of whether the statute protected Roe v. Wade based on its language, “even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law.”
But what did Obama say back then? What was Obama’s excuse back in 2002? What were his words on the floor of the State Senate. Senator Obama was the only person to speak out in opposition of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.”
Read it all from the link above, and read the actual transcripts of what Obama said in the state senate, not just what he NOW says about what he intended then.
Obama was clearly trying to go out of his way to preserve the rights of women to have abortions rather than going out of his way to preserve the life of a child who was inadvertently born alive. Not to be too cheesey here, but what do you think Jesus would have done? Hop up and down to keep abortion safe and legal, or try his best to be sure a helpless baby got assistance?
I really don’t see how a Christian can get comfortable with his stance on abortion, the Born Alive thing aside. I have Christian friends who support him who are just apparently willing to accept that this is his position on abortion, but support him anyway for other reasons. I can stomach that much better than those who try to support and defend his stance on abortion.
As for the abortion/death penalty situation, if you have to support a party that supports one or another, then surely it is clear that abortion kills more people daily than the death penalty has killed in the entire last century in America. Obama supports the death penalty as well, by the way.
@Aaron, probably worth noting that your Web site is veered toward the right.
I think what it comes down to it, I think most Americans have similar conflicts are are forced to choose the view they feel best fits their moral and civic compass.
I’m still deciding.
mai, it was worth noting that redstate is a conservative site, which is why I noted that fact.
Otherwise agreed.
Why does everyone make such a huge fuss about the abortion issue in elections? It is such a non-issue issue. It gets used to gain votes, and really nothing else. Bush ran on being anti-abortion (he is not pro-life) both times and nothing has happened. Why don’t we force the candidates to take hard stances on other stuff?
i think that where you stand on an issue such as abortion is a window into your character and where your values lie. so, as a marker of character, i think it matters. if we knew a candidate were a puppy kicker would it matter to us because it would say something about his or her character.
you could have said the same thing about slavery – it was a non-issue unless you were black, right? but no, some whites were courageous enough to stand up for the rights of others and they eventually prevailed here and in england. some day those of us who stand up for the unborn may have a victory as well.
bush has appointed judges and justices who take legal stances that tend against the logic of Roe v. Wade, so I don’t think that you can say “nothing” has happened as a result of his being an anti-abortion president.
The numbers show there have been more abortions during Bush’s presidency than during Clinton’s…and Clinton was very much pro-choice.
It’s a tough call. Elections always are for followers of Christ. I think the key is to remember we are voting for POLITICIANS. They do not have kingdom values as their priorities. The government of our nation is their priority.
Like you, Ariah, I deeply question the role of government in the life of a Christian. Seems like we fully expect them to do the things God has called US to do. We rely on a secular government to cure the world…we go dutifully place our vote…and then most of us return home to wash our hands clean of it. Until next go round….And we get so angry when they fail us time after time…. Definately something wrong with this picture. 🙁
So…I am trying to remind myself that our elected officials are not to be looked upon as “godly” role models. Afterall, they probably wouldn’t be in the position they were in if they were. Jesus would never run for president. 😉 Ya know what I mean?? Seriously.
We should not expect them to be about the work of God. They were never supposed to be. The founders of our country made that distinction clear between church and state for a reason. Power is a dangerous and weighty thing all by itself. Tangle it up with religion and you get trouble. They knew that all too well!
Ultimately, our government officials are here to uphold our constitution and stand up for the things WE, as citizens, tell them are important to us.
So, like Aaron said, many issues are character defining (like abortion, but also stances on other life valuing issues like war, the death penalty, poverty, immigration, health care, etc. ) So, as followers of Christ, we MUST vote with our hearts as well as our heads. We cannot seperate our “vote” from our “walk”, if that makes sense.
Yet, all the while, remembering not everyone in this country believes the exact same we do on every issue, including our politicians. Especially the “Christian” ones. Afterall, they are attempting to serve two masters….and we all know how that one turns out.
Another thing I want to point out is that I am very very wary of any politician who claims their policy is the “will of God”. Especially when it is so in opposition to the things I read in my Bible. I would rather vote for a straight forward agnostic than for someone who would twist the word of God so selfishly and go on ruining His reputation in the eyes of the world. That is very dangerous territory that I want no part of!
At this point, I have weighed all the issues and am comfortable with the decision I have made. My candidate of choice is NOT perfect…but nobody is. But his values line up very closely with mine…at least the ones that will have any true effect on the state of life in our world. The rest, I leave up to God and all his followers. We have much more power to change things for the better anyway.
Peace,
Jamie
@jamie that more abortions under bush is not correct. see the article @ factcheck.org. iam writing this from a phone so I will get the link later.
I will double check at some point later in the day…and very well may end up eating my words…LOL…
but based on the last time I researched this, I think the factcheck article you’re referring to is the one that disproves Hilary Clinton’s famous “abortions dropped during my husband’s term and rose during Bush’s term.” That quote was definately in error. It has been since proven that abortions actually continued to *drop* slightly while Bush was in office. But the fact is that the abortion rate was still higher while Bush was president than with Clinton.
Just kinda de-bunks the whole “a pro-life president will wipe out abortion theory” for me. Bush was such an anti-choice, pro-life no matter what kind of guy, and it just didn’t happen. I used to think when people said “abortion is a non-issue” were heartless..but after some thought and prayer and research, I am now in that camp as well. 🙂
Regardless of the policy or legislation at play, unlesss something is done (socially, economically) to lessen the reasons women choose abortions, very little changes. You can claim all day long that you are against abortion, but until you work actively to bring about the things you are FOR, your stance is pretty meaningless and ineffective at best. And if you look at our history, there has never been a politician in office to actually seek to overturn Roe v Wade. Even McCain has been recorded as saying he doesn’t believe it should be overturned. So why do we ignore all the other issues that are oh so important in favor of a guy we don’t see eye-to-eye with, merely because he is “pro-life”. ?? He’s not gonna do anything effective about abortion once he gets into office. Ya know?? Really.
So for me, all the other issues in this election are the “issue”. Abortion? Not so much. If we get all the other stuff lined up and taken care of, and all of us Christians get out there DOING something to practice what we preach (valuing the sanctity of ALL life, loving and supporting women in day-to-day life, and taking care of some mamas and adopting some babies)then less abortions will naturally take place. Regardless of the legal status. I am a firm believer in the idea that abortions can be legal (and safe) and still be RARE. We just have to work at it.
All of us.
Peace,
Jamie
Last thought on the abortion, Born Alive, specifically as it relates to Obama. I checked out FactCheck.org, which is as unbiased as I know of, and it has a long article on it. But then end is telling, with the same quotes I pulled from the liberal site, which have to do what Obama, on record, said was his reasoning for voting against the bills at the time that he did…
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
On the Record
While we don’t have a record of Obama’s 2003 comments on SB 1082, he did express his objection to the 2001 and 2002 bills.
Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.
Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.
Obama’s critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies’ welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing “born-alive” bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.
__________
Again, I’m only pointing to this as a source for Obama’s motivation, not making a statement one way or the other about what I think is morally right relating to abortion or the born alive stuff. Still unsure about all of it, if it’s okay for me to say that and not be labeled cold and heartless.
I just cannot imagine Jesus having a hard time on the Born Alive Act.
You’re right, Aaron. I can’t imagine Jesus ever fighting to protect our “constitutional rights” either.
Like I said, politicians go by a different code. Their only concern is “of this world”. That’s why you and I (and everyone else here trying to follow Jesus) find it nearly impossible to relate to them. We are citizens of an entirely different kingdom. 😉
Peace,
Jamie
We haven’t gotten a new post in a while…you’re not going to blame this on your computer dying are you?!