CT on DNC Response to Catholics & Evangelicals on Abortion, Or "We Give You Permission Not to Kill Your Child"

Christianity Today has a View in the October 2008 issue, "Can We Come to the Party?", about the difference between access and real influence in political parties. The case cited in point: The Democratic Platform Committee was, according to Jim Wallis, "really seeking what evangelicals and Catholic leaders felt about" abortion. Tony Campolo, who actually served on the committee said, "They listened. They took us seriously." The committee and the Obama campaign, he said, "took seriously and responsibly what Catholics and evangelicals had to say." I wonder "what they had to say." For CT writes:

And they came up with the most pro-abortion plank in the party's history, calling abortion a need and eliminating language that "abortion should be safe, legal, and rare," because abortion lobbyists felt it cast abortion in a negative moral light. (CT's emphasis)

But the consulted evangelicals were jubilant, pointing out that the plaftorm also "strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child."

The Obama Campaign and the Democratic Party, in the words of Northland Church senior pastor Joel Hunter, "have taken a historic and courageous step toward empowering women for an expanded range of choices and saving babies' lives by supporting mothers whose will and conscience tell them to carry their babies to term."
Did anyone tell Pastor Hunter that some women have already gone ahead and had their babies before the DNC platform was approved? They thought that "pro-chioce" meant they could. More Hunter:

"Pro-lifers of both parties can now support Sen. Obama on the basis that more lives will be saved than if they had just taken a moral stance hoping to overturn Roe v. Wade."

Reporters "kept pointing out that pro-life Democrats had lost." Hunter and the others, CT says, insisted they hadn't lost but, "They had been included." Why does the image of Neville Chamberlain come to mind? A sorry state of mind.

Comments

[Rob G]

"Pro-lifers of both parties can now support Sen. Obama on the basis that more lives will be saved than if they had just taken a moral stance hoping to overturn Roe v. Wade."

The problems with that once sentence are Legion.

What a bunch of patsies these guys like Campolo, Hunter, and Wallis are. Or maybe they're not patsies. Maybe they just don't care all that much about the abortion issue.

Or perhaps it's a little of both?

[labrialumn]

Rob, basically, they aren't evangelicals, but wish to influence uncatechized evangelicals in order to lead them away from Biblical thinking, so they adopt the name.

Just as Catholics for Choice isn't really a Roman Catholic organization.

[Steve K.]

Quite right, L'Abri. They do loathsome things and are in the service of the Enemy.

[labrialumn]

I may need a new handle. I am not a L'Abri worker, and do not speak for L'Abri. I am an 'alumn' and L'Abri has strongly influenced me. But maybe my handle is misleading?

Thoughts?

[pilgrim kate]

Is this article online? The given link is a general one.

[Judy K. Warner]

Your moniker is perfectly clear, Labrialum. Though quite a few people here don't see anything wrong with using our real names.

[Kamilla]

Whoa, wait, someone help, the room is spinning . . . What was that? Oh, "They listened. They took us seriously."

Sonds familiar, doesn't it? Thought I was suffering a phase/time shift to some Indaba group or other.

Matilda Wigglesworth-Smythington

[Rob G]

The Evangelical Left and the Emergents are famous for going on and on about how terrible it is that American Christians have confused and conflated their faith with politics by hooking their religion to the GOP horses.

Their cure for this? Hook it up to the ol' gray mare instead.

[GL]

>>>But the consulted evangelicals were jubilant, pointing out that the plaftorm also "strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child."<<<

Shortly after Palin was chosen by McCain, I expressed my concerns about lauding her "choice" to not murder Trig and her daughter's "choice" not to murder her child. Christians have no real choice to make in this regard. Murder is not an option; love is a command, not a choice. There is for a bond servant of the Lord no list of options, of which love is one and murder another.

And here we see once again the poison of so-called (self-declared) pro-lifers adopting the language of choice. That is the enemies language, not our Lord's. Choosing, not obeying, is what Eve did at the behest of the serpent in the garden. Choosing, not obeying, is what Adam did at the behest of Eve in the garden. Not choosing, but obeying, is what our Lord did in the garden.

[William Tighe]

Labrialumn,

Don't you also post comments under the moniker "Sodbuster?" I discovered this, rather to my surprise, by idly running my cursor over "Sodbuster" in a comment a month or two ago and finding the "labrialumn" e-mail address. It has sometimes seemed to me that "Labrialumn" and "Sodbuster" have a similar relationship as "Dr. Jekyll" and "Mr. Hyde," so perhaps it is a good idea to keep them distinct.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

James Kushiner: "Reporters "kept pointing out that pro-life Democrats had lost." Hunter and the others, CT says, insisted they hadn't lost but, "They had been included."

Why does the image of Neville Chamberlain come to mind? A sorry state of mind.

James, the image of Vidkun Quisling also comes to mind for pastors Wallis, Campolo, and Hunter, and for all other self-professing Christians who reason similarly in supporting and voting for pro-abortionist politicians like Barack Obama.

Lasting shame accrued to Neville Chamberlain and Quisling. Shame for those Christians who vote to enable the killing of unborn life.

Thanks Mr. Kushiner for the post.

[labrialumn]

Kamilla, thank you for your kind suggestion, but I feel that Matilda Wigglesworth-Smithington doesn't represent my character or sex all that well, and is awfully long for a nom-de-plum. :-)

[Joe Long]

Well, the Democratic Party is certainly softening. Magnanimous of them. Betcha if we ask real nice, they might affirm the rights of gays to remain unmarried, too.

As for supposed Christians collaborating with this platform, they're demonstrating freedom of irreligion. However, they'd do us all more good by also exercising their freedom not to speak...

[ChrisB]

GL: Christians have no real choice to make in this regard.

No, but Americans do, and many professing American Christians make the wrong choice in these circumstances.

These ladies, when faced with difficult circumstances, lived up to their beliefs rather than taking the easy way out. No, they're not unique, but they are unfortunately rare and highlight the difference between the two camps.

[Kamilla]

No no no no!

M W-S is MY real name . . .

[Fr. Robert K. McMeekin]

Who said the age of the "useful idiot" died with the Bolsheviks? I don't know what is more abhorrent: the delusion that they had an influence on the players and the platform; or the self-congratulatory tone in their announcement that they have finally gained a place at the table? This sort of capitulation can only ensure one thing: more babies will be murdered under the Obama administration while these "religious leaders" get to clumsily hob-nob with the political elite. What's that I hear from Obama? "Why some of my best friends are Evangelicals!"

How about this approach? Mr. Obama and members of the platform committee, Abortion is murder. Period. Any questions?

[Stuart Koehl]

The Lenin called them useful idiots. Your typical Soviet was less polite. He called them "govnoyedi". Write to me if you don't know Russian.

[Joe Long]

I understand an embassy joke was, "We're having some govnoyedi over for dinner. Prepare a suitable menu."

It seems to me that most politically active Christians in America, consider their co-religionists on the other side of the cultural chasm to be someone's "useful idiots". Certainly that is my point of view about those coopted by the Left, out of charity: if they are not idiots, they are something much, much worse.

And in defense of those who make the countercharge: no conservative idiot, ever seems very "useful" - that's why it's a left-wing term. Even as idiots, we are generally obstructionists.

[labrialumn]

Dearest Matilda,
Might it be that you are one of Wooster's Aunts, or are you perhaps a private investigator when you are not puttering about in the garden?

LOL!

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Joe Long: "It seems to me that most politically active Christians in America, consider their co-religionists on the other side of the cultural chasm to be someone's "useful idiots"."

Joe, you're so thoughtful and irenic when you sweetly toss bouquets of praise to the other side.

It's much appreciated.

[NTBH]

Labrialumn,

It took me about a year to figure out your screen name. To take it away now is to remove what I consider to be a great puzzle of Merecomments.

[Kamilla]

Labrialumn,

I think I had better be one of Bertie's Aunts. I have black thumbs so my garden would be the scandal of the village.

Kamilla

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

This is what pastors Wallis, Campolo, Joel Hunter, and all the other self-identified Christians who are voting Democrat support:

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

From: The Official Democrat Party Platform

[AMereLurker]

What is meant by "regardless of ability to pay?" Doctors should be required to perform abortions for free?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What is meant by "regardless of ability to pay?" Doctors should be required to perform abortions for free?<<<

That's code for "We want YOU to pay for HER abortion, whether you think abortion is murder or not".

[Francesca]

>>"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."<<

This position is also supported by enough conservatives that the Republican Party has to perform a precarious balancing act in its efforts to keep its various constituencies happy. One of the reasons Palin was picked was that the Republicans wanted both a woman and a prolifer on the ticket to appeal to women and prolifers (McCain was a little suspect on that front,) but virtually every qualified Republican woman was prochoice. The net result is that Repubs hold out the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade through nominating certain judges, but I'm really not sure that they would follow through or that such a nomination would be confirmed if they did. Even if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, that would merely kick the problem back to the states, which wouldn't help much. Several states are vehemently opposed to criminalizing the practise, and how hard is it to cross a state border? Further, there is no consensus for criminalizing abortion and it would be virtually impossible to enforce such criminalization if there were. The rich would go to Canada for their abortions, the poor would rely on DIY techniques with a coat hanger, and those in between would find ways to procure RU-486 or a backstreet abortion.

Barack Obama said tonight that health care is a "right," while John McCain described it as a "responsibility." Democrats are far more supportive of prenatal care for those fetuses some apparently feel should be pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Apart from health care for all, Democrats are also more likely to support entitlements for struggling families, comprehensive sex education, easy access to contraception, parental leave bills, ensuring environmental safety, returning economic health to this country, and support for college education -- all strongly prolife policies in that they reduce infant mortality, make it easier for families to welcome, care for, and educate children, and reduce unwanted pregnancies. In short, Democrats favor policies that have been shown to substantially *reduce* abortion rates in most First World countries. I've previously posted statistics from The Lancet that indicate abortion rates are much lower in some countries where it is legal than in some where it is not.

By contrast, many Republican policies are more likely to encourage abortion. Severe economic hardship for some, difficulty in obtaining health care (McCain has even proposed taxing health benefits!), the expense of putting multiple children through college, ignorance about sexuality, and limited access to contraception all correlate with higher abortion rates.

As a Democrat, I would like to see the Dems propose more limitations on abortion. As a realist, I understand that an anti-abortion vote for the Republican Party is merely symbolic. A Republican victory would almost certainly result in a net increase in abortions, along with an increase in or continuation of anti-family, anti-life, and anti-social policies.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Francesca: "As a realist, I understand that an anti-abortion vote for the Republican Party is merely symbolic."

As a realist, I understand that a Democrat claiming to be pro-life is merely symbolic.

P.S. Francesca, the rest of your comment is also objectionable and open to refutation, but I don't have the time for lengthy rebuttal.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

And as a realist, I'd also acknowledge that it's highly likely that Francesca and other Democrat voters will be celebrating on Nov. 4th because Barack Obama will be voted in as President.

I'm not happy about that, but we reap what we sow. Here's another opinion confirming my prognosis:

"By this time next month, Senator Barack Obama will be the President-elect of the United States. Barring some catastrophic and unforeseen mishap, I think it is all but certain that Obama will win. Nothing happened in tonight’s debate that will change that fact.

... The bottom line is this. Obama is leading in the battleground states that will decide the election, and the trend lines are going against John McCain in those same states.

All of this bodes ill for those of us who regard the abortion issue as paramount. After Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint 2 to 3 Supreme Court Justices—Justices that will prolong the pro-choice majority that currently rules the court. So it appears that the immoral regime of Roe v. Wade—a regime that has presided over the deaths of 50 million babies since 1973—will continue for the foreseeable future.

We won’t see many opportunities in our lifetime to shift the majority of the Court on this issue. I’m sad to say that it looks like we’ll miss this one."

From: The Second Debate and an Election Prediction

[GL]

>>>By this time next month, Senator Barack Obama will be the President-elect of the United States. . . . All of this bodes ill for those of us who regard the abortion issue as paramount. After Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint 2 to 3 Supreme Court Justices—Justices that will prolong the pro-choice majority that currently rules the court. So it appears that the immoral regime of Roe v. Wade—a regime that has presided over the deaths of 50 million babies since 1973—will continue for the foreseeable future.

We won’t see many opportunities in our lifetime to shift the majority of the Court on this issue. I’m sad to say that it looks like we’ll miss this one.<<<

So, the strategy to reduce abortions by changing the law will have failed, at least "for the foreseeable future." That will leave "pro-life" Christians and others two choices: fold our hands and say we tried, what more can we do or starting living lives that truly and completely reflect our self-proclaimed pro-life convictions and patiently wait on the Lord. A few generations of "pro-lifers" having large families while "pro-choicers" have few, if any, children, and properly catechizing those children and pro-lifers will represent overwhelming majorities. Had all the self-proclaimed pro-lifers truly and fully been pro-lifers we might have sufficient majorities already to win the elections necessary to overturn Roe.

So lets forget about how pro-life the GOP really is. The question is how pro-life "pro-lifers" really are.

[DGP]

>>A few generations of "pro-lifers" having large families while "pro-choicers" have few, if any, children, and properly catechizing those children and pro-lifers will represent overwhelming majorities. Had all the self-proclaimed pro-lifers truly and fully been pro-lifers we might have sufficient majorities already to win the elections necessary to overturn Roe.

Such ironies are interesting, but not always very enlightening. Societies and families rarely comply with neat syllogisms like this. There remain other questions: Is it really the time to retreat to Christian ghettos? If not, then what kind of civilization are we trying to build? Also, if we're not in ghettos, why do you believe that the ethos of abortion will unfold any differently from various sexual liberations which, once offered as choices, have now become mandates? If we do retreat to ghettos, why do you think we will be allowed to flourish, particularly by having children? (There are ancient and modern precedents to the contrary!) Even if we are so permitted, how does this shape our witness to the truth -- not only the truth about children, but about law, government, and culture?

[Steve Nicoloso]

Is it really the time to retreat to Christian ghettos? If not, then what kind of civilization are we trying to build? Also, if we're not in ghettos, why do you believe that the ethos of abortion will unfold any differently from various sexual liberations which, once offered as choices, have now become mandates? If we do retreat to ghettos, why do you think we will be allowed to flourish, particularly by having children?

What you call a ghetto, DGP, might be seen as a monastery. That doesn't sound so bad, does it? Secular Monastery? Flourishing is not so much allowed or permitted, but should instead be seen as arising naturally from single-minded devotion to virtue, beauty, and truth... irrespective of the potential strictures of a hostile (and increasingly insecure) majority.

[DGP]

>>What you call a ghetto, DGP, might be seen as a monastery.

No, it may not so be seen. Pending the return of the Lord, a monastery means little apart from the Church as a whole. It makes about as much sense as a clergy without a laity. More to the point: To turn the whole Church into a monastery is to make it something other than the Church.

>>That doesn't sound so bad, does it? Secular Monastery?

There's a reason this is oxymoronic. Secular persons are by definition concerned with the welfare of the world, including its evangelization. I'm not sure this is what GL is advocating, but if so, it's tantamount to abdicating from the Great Commission.

>>Flourishing is not so much allowed or permitted, but should instead be seen as arising naturally from single-minded devotion to virtue, beauty, and truth... irrespective of the potential strictures of a hostile (and increasingly insecure) majority.

Yes, but I was responding specifically to GL, who cast this as a matter of using the lost generation to overtake pro-choicers in population, and so resurge to a pro-life civilization. Such a proposal presupposes the kind of flourishing of which I spoke.

[GL]

Whoa, DGP. You have read a lot into my post which wasn't there. Who is talking about Christian ghettos to which Christians retreat? I'm talking about Christians who fight to change the laws against abortion, but then themselves contracept, and, so, are not really pro-life, but merely anti-murder. The later is a good thing and I do not oppose voting for pro-life candidates and working to overturn Roe and to put in place measures to restrict and minimize abortion within the existing law. I do those things myself. I am saying that such action is not enough and, in fact, is not what we should primarily being doing. We have our priorities wrong.

We most certainly should continue with the Great Commission for it is our Lord's command. We should also live fully pro-life lives. As I have said before, being fruitful and multiplying has both a biological and a spiritual component. The former is being open to the procreation of biological life; the later is evangelization, which is, in a sense, being open to the procreation of spiritual life. In both cases, of course, the Lord is the Creator; we are merely His servants. Neither involves retreating into a ghetto.

Changing the laws on abortion (and other matters which are of concern to orthodox Christians) will be the consequence of obeying our Lord on these two issues. Right now, many pro-life Christian have put the cart before the horses, fighting to overturn Roe and enacting legal restriction on a abortion (the cart) while neglecting evangelization and procreation (the horses). If these twin horses are fed and watered and hitched to the cart, they will pull the cart to where we want it to be. If they are ignored or even dismissed, the cart is going nowhere.

I have been voting pro-life for nearly 30 years, ever since I could vote. Roe is still the law of the land and will be, as TUAD informs us, for the foreseeable future. Why? I assert it is because most self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" are not truly and fully pro-life. I frankly am tired of people trying to outlaw abortion who are themselves contracepting. Matthew 7:1-5 is what I keep citing, but few want to hear it. They would prefer condemning the anti-life actions of others while clinging to their own anti-life actions.

It won't work; it hasn't worked. The Lord has not blessed our efforts. Perhaps it is time for some serious self-examination to try to find out why. Perhaps we are like the people of Israel who, when they rejected the advice of Joshua and Caleb and so were told that they would have to wait 40 years before their children could enter the Promised Land, decided to ignore Moses injunction not to proceed in an effort to conquer the Promised Land on their own only to fail miserably. Like them, we want to conquer without obeying. It won't work. As Moses told those who fought after being told not too, perhaps the Lord is not with us in this battle and won't be until we first confess and repent of our own anti-life sins.

But if folks out there want to continue fighting the same battle without first engaging in self-examination, confession and repentance, then they are, of course, free to do so. They should not, however, expect any different results.

[DGP]

>>Whoa, DGP. You have read a lot into my post which wasn't there.

Sorry. I believe I qualified my remarks with a lot of "ifs," precisely because it wasn't clear to me just what you wanted.

Admittedly, you were responding to TUAD, who frequently sets up misbegotted dichotomies, but you did seem to concede that our choices were limited to (1) saying we tried and failed and (2) living out our pro-life convictions and patiently waiting on the Lord.

You then wrote of a population race, which seemed to be what you meant as living pro-life. I missed all the other evangelical and integrative remarks, which you evidently intended as presuppositions. I misunderstood, I apologize.

>>Who is talking about Christian ghettos to which Christians retreat?

Actually, a lot of people do this. It's a common observation of the Radical Reform movement, but the same recommendation under different names appears in squirrely ways elsewhere, and widely throughout the culture -- in Baptist versions of "a wall of separation between Church and state," in Rush Limbaugh's claims that "religion is [strictly] private," and of course in the dogmatic secularist's "naked public square," to name a few examples. Many folks on the left and right, Christian and not, would happily see us march into ghettos.

[labrialumn]

Kamilla,
Well, you'd be the nice one that Bertie wasn't afraid of. (unless he'd done something really stupid, so on second thought, maybe he would be ;-)

Amerilurker,
That is correct. The Democrats want to force doctors, nurses and pharmacists to materially perform and assist in abortion under penalty of law and their jobs.

Francesca, in reality, there would be far fewer abortions, just as abortions increased more than ten-fold following the Roe v Wade decriminalization of abortion. And frankly, if women wish to murder their own children, and die in the attempt, isn't that their own fault? Do we grieve much for the murderer who accidentally shoots himself in the attempt of killing someone else? That is harsh, I agree, but that is reality.

Christian ghettos? Obama and Pelosi brook no opposition. What Christian ghettos? The One got rid of those 'haters' early in his glorious reign.

Obama leads, but not by much in terms of the popular vote. If we convince our congregations that this election really is critical to the lives of tens of millions yet unborn, and our very political and religious liberties themselves, we can change this. Evangelicals vote at about 30-some percentage. Catholics tend to vote for the pro-abortion side out of family tradition. Yet these are the core of the pro-life movement. If they can be awoken - and please God, awaken them before it is too late for the sake of the little ones!, Obama doesn't have to win.

[GL]

>>>Admittedly, you were responding to TUAD, who frequently sets up misbegotted dichotomies, but you did seem to concede that our choices were limited to (1) saying we tried and failed and (2) living out our pro-life convictions and patiently waiting on the Lord.<<<

Then I am to blame for being unclear. I simply meant to covey the idea that the much (certainly not all) of the pro-life movement has limited itself to trying to change the law. That is not how the early Church changed the culture in which it lived. Until Constantine, the early Church had no means of changing the law, but they certain changed the culture, though it was a slow and painful process, simply by living Christian lives. That is what we need to get back to.

And I did not mention evangelization in my first post, but neither did I exclude it. Of course, few Christians, even those who don't actually practice it, would deny that we should be evangelizing the world. Unfortunately, many Christians (indeed, most, including most "pro-life" Christians) do deny that we should be open to life.

I am sick and tired of "pro-life," contracepting Christians telling Christians who have soured on the GOP that they are not good Christians. I'm voting for McCain, but I am holding my nose while doing it. I've soured on the GOP; but I won't vote for Obama or any other pro-choice candidate. Before someone tells other Christians that they are not good Christians because they vote for a pro-choice candidate, he should ask himself whether he is living a truly and fully pro-life life or whether he is pro-choice when it comes to procreation. If the latter, he should read Matthew 7:1-5.

[Bobby Winters]

If I may be so bold, it seems to me that much scripture is devoted to the reality of God's people living as exiles within another's land. I don't know that we should adopt that as an ideal, but God has offered us examples of ways we can play that role.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

My favorite Touchstone editor on this issue is James Kushiner. I deeply respect and appreciate his unyielding and unwavering blog posts against the evil of abortion. Here's a sampling:

o "Why does the image of Neville Chamberlain come to mind? A sorry state of mind."

o "Hadley Arkes at The Catholic Thing addresses same question we've addressed before, how one's position on abortion on abortion is a standout, a priority, a foundational matter, not unlike slavery."

o "Many citizens, including many who call themselves serious Christians, and intend to be, are dancing on the edge of this abyss, seemingly unaware of the dangers as well as ignorant of the clarity of the long moral tradition upon which the Christian faith has stood for ages. And then there are those deliberate blurring that tradition, calling themselves Christian, especially doing so to give political cover to the Personal Opposition Party, a group of politicians who are personally opposed to various "evils" or "tragedies" but publicly supportive of allowing and sanctioning the same."

o "It also explains why the legal status quo, Roe v. Wade, simply must be destroyed. It's a notice most of which could go in the bulletin of any Christian church, and if you need to change the word Catholic to Christian, I don't think anyone would strongly object...."

o "You know how unsophisticated I've been for a number of years because I am one of those "single-issue" voters, motivated by my opposition to legalized abortion as a violation of the moral law, the embrace of which leads to the death of a culture, surely, if slowly.

To repeat myself, Roe v. Wade is bad law, and must be destroyed, if for no other reason than to allow communities to keep the blood of innocents from their ground, and return the right to life to its proper place in informing the laws of the land."

And here's a good one from Steve Hutchens:

"Whoever tries to end the mass killing of children may confidently expect the tu quoque of the bloody-handed, to be accused of involvement in a score of other "holocausts" its advocates have contrived to deceive the simple and exculpate themselves."

Thanks for the warning Steve. You're so right.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

My favorite Touchstone editor on this issue is James Kushiner. I deeply respect and appreciate his unyielding and unwavering blog posts against the evil of abortion. Here's a sampling:

o "Why does the image of Neville Chamberlain come to mind? A sorry state of mind."

o "Hadley Arkes at The Catholic Thing addresses same question we've addressed before, how one's position on abortion on abortion is a standout, a priority, a foundational matter, not unlike slavery."

o "Many citizens, including many who call themselves serious Christians, and intend to be, are dancing on the edge of this abyss, seemingly unaware of the dangers as well as ignorant of the clarity of the long moral tradition upon which the Christian faith has stood for ages. And then there are those deliberate blurring that tradition, calling themselves Christian, especially doing so to give political cover to the Personal Opposition Party, a group of politicians who are personally opposed to various "evils" or "tragedies" but publicly supportive of allowing and sanctioning the same."

o "It also explains why the legal status quo, Roe v. Wade, simply must be destroyed. It's a notice most of which could go in the bulletin of any Christian church, and if you need to change the word Catholic to Christian, I don't think anyone would strongly object...."

o "You know how unsophisticated I've been for a number of years because I am one of those "single-issue" voters, motivated by my opposition to legalized abortion as a violation of the moral law, the embrace of which leads to the death of a culture, surely, if slowly.

To repeat myself, Roe v. Wade is bad law, and must be destroyed, if for no other reason than to allow communities to keep the blood of innocents from their ground, and return the right to life to its proper place in informing the laws of the land."

And here's a good one from Steve Hutchens:

"Whoever tries to end the mass killing of children may confidently expect the tu quoque of the bloody-handed, to be accused of involvement in a score of other "holocausts" its advocates have contrived to deceive the simple and exculpate themselves."

Thanks for the warning Steve. You're so right.

[Michael]

Truth's italics off.

[GL]

TUAD,

1.  Do you or do you not believe that one who claims to be pro-life should oppose contraception as well as abortion?

2.  Should one who condemns others of not being good Christians for voting for pro-choice candidates on the issue of abortion consider himself a good Christian if he practices contraception?

[Joe Long]

GL - you said, "I am sick and tired of 'pro-life,' contracepting Christians telling Christians who have soured on the GOP that they are not good Christians."

Perhaps we need a simpler category called "Anti-abortion"; indeed, I know many who claim that supporters of the death penalty or of any war, cannot call themselves "pro-life" either. (Guilty, on those charges: I am not indiscriminately pro-life when it comes to convicted murderers or enemy soldiers, nor am I a vegetarian, for that matter. And surely vegetable life has its activists by now, as well.)

But surely even a pagan could objectively evaluate that a "Christian" Democrat is taking a manifestly anti-Christian political stance by aligning himself with the Democrats. (I sour on the GOP, too, regularly, but I don't think that is usually cause for theological judgement from even the fiercest - whereas collaboration with Democrats is, and ought to be).

It is true contraceptionists might not be as qualified, due to the specks in their eyes, to remove the beams from those of others...but the comment, "Hey! There's a two-by-four sticking out of your head!" can be a valid one, no matter the source, methinks.

There's a difference, of course, between being horrifying, perilously wrong, and being a "bad Christian"; we're all bad Christians, or we couldn't need to be Christians at all.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

GL,

Do you respect and appreciate Touchstone editor James Kushiner's staunch, single-issue approach to abortion and voting? I do.

Anyways, I see that you want to hi-jack a blog post and thread on abortion into discussion on contraception. Very well, let's play.

1. Do you or do you not believe that one who claims to be pro-life should oppose contraception as well as abortion?

Please define contraception so that I and others are on the same page with regards to terms. For example, suppose a woman has her tubes tied, or a man has a vasectomy, is that considered contraception? Please enumerate all the aspects that you consider contraception.

2. Should one who condemns others of not being good Christians for voting for pro-choice candidates on the issue of abortion consider himself a good Christian if he practices contraception?

This one's easier. If the Christian regards contraception as sin, and is unrepentant in using contraception, then that Christian is not being good in terms of honoring the conscience that the Holy Spirit has provided.

BTW, my original comment which I hope that you don't continue to distort and misrepresent as is your wont to do:

"Liberal Christians voting for Barack Obama and who know full well of Barack Obama's militant pro-abortion position and voting record are ....

not good Christians on this morally transcendent issue."

[GL]

Joe,

I don't disagree with a word you said. But let me qualify my agreement.

>>>It is true contraceptionists might not be as qualified, due to the specks in their eyes, to remove the beams from those of others...but the comment, "Hey! There's a two-by-four sticking out of your head!" can be a valid one, no matter the source, methinks.<<<

It may be valid, but if the source has a log in his own eye, it is hypocritical. That is not my assessment; that is our Lord's. And our Lord commanded us to remove the log from our eyes before attempting to remove specks from the eyes of others.

On the death penalty, as you know, I support it, but only in cases in which the Scriptural standards of evidence and procedure are applied, which they most decidedly are not in American courts. If they were, we would have far fewer innocent men and women on death row. On war, I accept the just war doctrine. Scripture clearly contemplates both the death penalty and war under certain circumstances.

[Rob G]

"Democrats are far more supportive of prenatal care for those fetuses some apparently feel should be pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Apart from health care for all, Democrats are also more likely to support entitlements for struggling families, comprehensive sex education, easy access to contraception, parental leave bills, ensuring environmental safety, returning economic health to this country, and support for college education -- all strongly prolife policies in that they reduce infant mortality, make it easier for families to welcome, care for, and educate children, and reduce unwanted pregnancies."

The first sentence of this farrago is ludicrous. Furthermore, the whole thing assumes that entitlements are the answer to all of these problems. The usual Democratic claptrap: if we only spent more (of someone else's) money all the problems would just -- whoosh! -- disappear!

My suggestion to the liberals: redistribute your own damn wealth, and kindly allow me to apply mine where I see fit.

[GL]

>>>Please define contraception so that I and others are on the same page with regards to terms. For example, suppose a woman has her tubes tied, or a man has a vasectomy, is that considered contraception? Please enumerate all the aspects that you consider contraception.<<<

By contraception, I mean "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible." The examples you gave fall within that definition, as do the use of birth control pills, diaphrams, condoms and IUDs. Now please answer my question.

>>>If the Christian regards contraception as sin, and is unrepentant in using contraception, then that Christian is not being good in terms of honoring the conscience that the Holy Spirit has provided.<<<

If that is your position, that whether a person is "being good in terms of honoring the conscience that the Holy Spirit has provided" depends on whether "the Christian regards [the act in question] as sin," then you are a relativist. And those who disagree with you on voting for pro-choice candidates can respond to you, "If the Christian regards voting for a pro-choice candidate as sin, and is unrepentant in voting for a pro-choice candidate, then that Christian is not being good in terms of honoring the conscience that the Holy Spirit has provided." Likewise, those who support abortion can respond to you, "If the Christian regards voting for abortion as sin, and is unrepentant in procuring an abortion, then that Christian is not being good in terms of honoring the conscience that the Holy Spirit has provided." Likewise, those who support same-sex "marriage" can respond to you, "If the Christian regards voting for same-sex marriage as sin, and is unrepentant in marrying someone of the same sex, then that Christian is not being good in terms of honoring the conscience that the Holy Spirit has provided."

My problem with your repeated approach on MC has been your not applying the same standards to yourself that you do to others. We agree on abortion and we agree on not voting for pro-choice candidates, but we disagree on our approach to the pro-life issue. You continually want to focus on government as the solution. Our Lord never told His followers to go change the laws; He told them to make disciples (i.e., to change men). Changing men, not changing laws, is our charge. The change in laws is the natural consequence of the change in men. You are putting the cart before the horse and are concentrating on tasks other than the primary one with which we are commissioned. If we obey our commission, the reduction in abortions will come.

You yourself have now noted that for the foreseeable future Roe will not be overturned. Sadly, I believe that is true. So what do we do in the meantime and what do we do to reach a future point (be it decades from now or centuries from now) to change the law? You offer no plan; you offer only chastisement for those who no longer believe that they can vote for a party which has made promises for 30 years, but has failed at fulfilling them. I have said what I believe we should do. What is your suggestion for what we do during the foreseeable future to change the future beyond our field of vision?

And I am not attempting to hijack this thread for a conversation of contraception. I am attempting to suggest that continuing to wail over a failed strategy and to condemn those who will no longer pursue it is a waste of time and bandwidth. It is time to move on and to say what we can do which might reduce abortions, if not now, then in the future.

[Clifford Simon]

The movie "Amazing Grace" is a good allegory for the present situation.

When Wilburforce took the people's petition to the king, and said, "You cannot stop the will of the people" - that was the turning point. Stubborn MPs could not resist forever when the country was not on their side.

And that is precisely where we are: when the people will it, the government will resist but will ultimately have to loose.

[Clifford Simon]

I mean that when America adopts a thoroughly pro-life lifestyle - pro-life, not just anti-abortion, and critical of contraception - that will be our "petition" that cannot loose.

[GL]

And that is our problem, Clifford, the people do not will the end of abortion, at least not with sufficient conviction and in sufficient numbers. Otherwise, they would vote for pro-life candidates in sufficient numbers to get a Court which would overturn Roe. If, as I suggested, pro-life Christians would be open to life, have, on average, large families, and properly catechize their children, in a few generations, the majority of voters would be pro-life. Then the law would change. So, if we lack sufficient votes in 2008 to elect a pro-life President and Congress, we can at least work toward a future in which we will. And all we have to do is be open to life and rear our children to be open to life, the very thing we are required to do by our faith in any event. Certainly, some of our children will defect, but some children of the pro-choice crowd (who will be lesser in number with time) will become pro-life.

I frankly don't see how voting for a pro-choice candidate today is any worse than not being willing to procreate and rear your own children to be the future pro-life voters. If we want to increase the relative number of pro-life voters, it is within our power to do so. For some, however, that is too great a sacrifice to make to save the lives of those being aborted and who will be aborted in the future; they have other, more important (to them) priorities, no matter what they may say to the contrary.

[Steve Nicoloso]

DGP, you and I are definitely on the same team here. Yes "secular monastic" is an oxymoron, but yet the call to holiness is universal. And there are secular people (married with children and worldly careers) who nevertheless desire to secure some of the blessings of Christendom for future generations, even if only for the sake of their own offspring. How did classical culture (and virtue) survive the collapse of Rome? Benedictine monasticism played no small role, I think. And now we're facing a new dark age; one in which it will be necessary, in order to preserve our culture and faith, to retreat, even whilst in the world, from some corners, and even tables of power, of that world. Homeschooling is one tiny example. The Catholic should be able to trust "Catholic" schools to impart the faith to their children, but today, so great is the darkness, even that is rarely possible. Is Catholic or Christian homeschooling a ghetto? Well, it largely is, but one in which Christian faith and practice is much more reliably preserved. In that sense, it is really a form of monasticism, and a few hundred years from now, it won't be seen as a ghetto.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Otherwise, they would vote for pro-life candidates in sufficient numbers to get a Court which would overturn Roe.<<<

And then/ Back to the states, status quo ante Roe. What you will find then is not the New Jerusalem, but a patchwork quilt of laws and regulations. I seriously doubt that any state will absolutely outlaw abortion under all circumstances--there will always be a "life of the mother"exemption, and some states will go this way. Let us call that the maximal solution.

But in more states, there will probably be additional exemptions for rape and inscest--this is the second best option.

In other states, the "life of the mother" exception will be replaced by a more elastic "health of the mother" clause, which will in practice allow abortion under most circumstance, if the woman really wants it. Third best option.

A few of the most liberal states will maintain the status quo in most regards.

At the other end, I cannot see any state allowing partial birth abortion, not in the long term. Neither can I see all but a handful of states allowing unregulated third trimester abortions.

So, the end of Roe is just the opening of a new front, but overall, the overturn of this very flawed decision will have generally positive effects, not just in regard to abortion, but in regard to constitutional law.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Yes "secular monastic" is an oxymoron, but yet the call to holiness is universal. <<<

Not entirely. Orthodox spirituality is essentially monastic, and every Orthodox Christian is exhorted to take up the monastic vocation ("to pray constantly") as appropriate for his gifts and his station in life. We are probably going to make this the theme of the 2009 Oriental Lumen Conference in June.

[GL]

I agree with everything Stuart posted. It is an improvement and it is likely the best case scenario. So, relying strictly on a legal solution does not "solve" the problem of abortion even if Roe were to be overturned tomorrow. And even then, criminalizing abortion will not end it, any more than it has ended any of the other acts which are now crimes. Changing hearts is far more important than changing laws. That is where are focus should be.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

GL: "Changing hearts is far more important than changing laws."

James Kushiner: "Roe v. Wade, simply must be destroyed."

I agree with Mr. Kushiner. And I know for myself, and I would assume the same for Mr. Kushiner as well, that neither one of us would disagree with you that changing hearts is more important than changing laws. I would submit to you that you are positing a false dichotomy. It's a Both/And situation. God changes hearts through faithful Gospel witnessing AND His disciples can simultaneously work to overturn unjust law. It's foolish to be either/or as you are describing.

Furthermore, suppose our good Mr. James Kushiner practiced contraception as you, GL, defined above. (Whether he has or hasn't, he need not disclose. Nor would I be interested in knowing.)

Based on your comments above, and upon your reference to Matt. 7:1-5, I infer that you're saying that Mr. Kushiner shouldn't take such a staunch position against abortion and against Roe v. Wade because he's (hypothetically) practiced contraception. Is that correct?

[DGP]

>>DGP, you and I are definitely on the same team here.

I don't doubt it.

>>Yes "secular monastic" is an oxymoron, but yet the call to holiness is universal. And there are secular people (married with children and worldly careers) who nevertheless desire to secure some of the blessings of Christendom for future generations, even if only for the sake of their own offspring.

A worthy, even obligatory, undertaking.

>>How did classical culture (and virtue) survive the collapse of Rome? Benedictine monasticism played no small role, I think.

Yes.

>>And now we're facing a new dark age...

Well. Yes, even if the disanalogies to the "dark ages" are numerous.

>>...one in which it will be necessary, in order to preserve our culture and faith, to retreat, even whilst in the world, from some corners, and even tables of power, of that world.

I might argue that this begs the question. I asked above whether such a retreat was necessary, and whether it would achieve the same strategic goals it did 1400 years ago. I'm not sure.

>>Homeschooling is one tiny example. The Catholic should be able to trust "Catholic" schools to impart the faith to their children, but today, so great is the darkness, even that is rarely possible. Is Catholic or Christian homeschooling a ghetto? Well, it largely is, but one in which Christian faith and practice is much more reliably preserved.

Not really: You are referring to what Bellah, et al., called an enclave -- roughly, a group of people establishing social bonds out of common interests. In the case of homoeschooling, the families retain a wide variety of other bonds (parish, neighborhood, work, etc.) which are more than residual and which cross homeschool boundaries. These additional bonds are inconsistent with ghetto life.

>>In that sense, it is really a form of monasticism, and a few hundred years from now, it won't be seen as a ghetto.

Monasticism of the dark ages bore more similarity to ghetto life than modern monasticism. The attributes of the ghetto are not intrinsic to monastic life, but insofar as they were present in centuries gone by reflected then-contemporary social exigences. Monasticism in essence is about solitude. Monasticism now and in the future is unlikely to take the form of a monastery and attached village secluded together in the SubAlpines.

Earlier, I misunderstood GL to be flirting with the idea of a true ghetto. I suspected he was endorsing a retreat from all serious social bonds with elements of the pro-choice culture at large, which would require insulation not only in schools, but in every other facet of life. While it would be good to have more Christians committed to such a life, I do not think the entire Church is called to it at this time.

[DGP]

>>Changing hearts is far more important than changing laws. That is where are focus should be.

Yes, but no. Changing hearts is more important, but changing the law is important in its own right, even if no lives are saved.

I am against abortion because it is a crime against the moral law, whether known by natural reason and by divine revelation. By itself, however, my position does not require to act against all abortions everywhere, anymore than I act against all murder, say, in Rwanda.

I am against the *legalization* of abortion because it is the first task of government to protect the weak from the strong -- that is, to impose the rule of law on those who might use their strength to escape it. In this republic, I have a responsibility to use my political resources to shape government according to the common good. Because abortion is both a grave crime and horrifyingly frequent, it must weigh heavily in any reasonable assessment of prudential political priorities. Even if I save no babies, I must work against the legalization of abortion as long as I enjoy any political voice: It is simply one of the responsibilities that flows automatically from political enfranchisement.

[Bill R]

I don't think that the election of Sen. Obama is inevitable, even though presently it seems likely. But should it occur, I believe God will use it as a means of testing the church. I think we will see the beginning of "soft persecution," the push by the state for the public acceptance of the morally unacceptable (abortion, homosexuality). I've said before that I think a Democratic administration will seek to revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that refuse toe the line by preaching against moral evils, and discriminating in the hiring of staff on the basis of religious and moral tests. Soft persecution will be sold as a means of eliminating "unfair" exemptions from taxation, rather than as a social punishment for anti-liberal behavior.

It may not be necessary for us to establish Christian "ghettoes"; the state may do that for us. Violence will rarely, if ever, be required. It will be merely a question of "revoking privileges," which in a different time might have been thought of as rights. If Christians can, very subtly, be reduced to second-class citizenship, we can effectively and cheaply be disenfranchised. There will be a social cost to being a Christian openly, and many nominal believers will be unwilling to pay that cost.

[GL]

I did practice contraception as I defined it -- well, actually as the Catholic Church defines it -- for a number of years. I have since repented of it.

Were Jim currently practicing contraception, I believe it would be hypocritical for him to claim to be pro-life. He could certainly still take the positions he does, but he couldn't honestly classify himself as pro-life.

I seriously doubt Jim currently practices contraception and I equally doubt that he approves of the practice.

My point to you is specifically your declaration that folks who vote for pro-choice candidates are "not good Christians on this morally transcendent issue." You want to take this one act, voting for pro-choice candidates, and condemn those who so act as "not good Christians on this morally transcendent issue." The "morally transcendent issue" is not their vote, but abortion. I would argue that those who minimize the number of future potentially pro-life voters by practicing contraception are just as guilty of "not [being] good Christians on this morally transcendent issue" and have no business casting stones at others from within their glass houses.

My post was not directed at others. It was directed at you. I don't have any idea whether you use contraception or not; it is none of my business. What I do know is that you are quick to condemn those who vote for pro-choice candidates and have no interest in recognizing that practicing contraception may be just as bad a sin, if not a worse sin, and may have a greater long-term impact on whether our abortion laws change than the outcome of any single election.

As someone is wont to say, truth unites . . . and divides.

[labrialumn]

GL, even the Roman Catholic Church discerns between murder and contraception. And allows NFP, which by your definition, would be contraception.

The Bible condemns murder and does not even mention contraception.

I'm personally much in favor of being open to life, but I have no divine revelation from God to bind consciences, though I would wish to help people see the wonder and glory of being open to life.

GL, we *are* the government, and we exercise that in just a few weeks. In that role, in obedience to God, we must try to change the laws. We are not subjects of an occupying power as were Jesus' immediate listeners. We *are* the government.

It may well become illegal in a matter of months to try to persuade people to a pro-life position, or that marriage is one man, one woman, for life. It matters tremendously this time that we vote, and that we vote against the fascist would-be antichrist of the New Party infiltration of the Democrat Party.

As to the 30 years canard, remember that we have a Senate and a Congress and the Supreme Court as well as the Presidency. In America, the president is not supposed to be a dictator for four or eight years (or ten, if you are Obama,he keeps saying he'd be president for 10 years.)

[GL]

Labrialumn,

May I suggest that you check the party affiliation of the members of the Supreme Court. During the majority of the 30 years since the GOP turned solidly pro-life, the Court has had 7 Republican justices and 2 Democrats. Further, the Republican controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for six consecutive years during this decade. For many Republican politician, pro-life is primarily a vote getter, not a matter of real conviction. Frankly, I'm not sure what, if any, real convictions many Republican politicians hold.

Again, I intend to vote pro-life. I have said that repeatedly. It is a matter of focus. I'll say it plainly: pro-life Christian have become "anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary." We need to get back to placing first things first, then all these things (including ending legalized abortion) will follow.

Third, the definition I used for contraception was that of the Catholic Church. If you have problems with it, take it up with Benedict. As to whether contraception is condemned in Scripture, Luther and Calvin certainly thought so, as did several of the early Fathers. I pit the reputations of those who held that Scripture does condemn contraception against those who do not and I challenge you to find even one teacher of our faith whose name anyone would recognize and who was not otherwise a heretic who held otherwise before the twentieth century. I have made that challenge on many occasions and for many years and I'm still waiting for even one name.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>How did classical culture (and virtue) survive the collapse of Rome? Benedictine monasticism played no small role, I think.<<<

The survival of classical culture in the eastern Roman Empire into the fifteenth century had a bit more to do with it than the Benedictines. Ask Petrarch.

The Monasticism of the East was both rural AND urban, and the division between eremitic and cenobitc communities makes any sort of comparison with the Ghetto impossible.

Besides, Jews in the Ghetto were not doing anything other than that which Jews had always done in all places--and were doing at that moment in other places where there was no Ghetto. The Jews in the Ghetto were there merely because they were constrained by law to live in that particular place.

On the other hand, nobody forced anyone to become a monk (OK, some people were given Hobson's Choice, but that's another matter). Monasticism is a VOCATION, which can be pursued anywhere and in any number of fashions. The solitary in the desert or the forest or the tundra is the exemplar of the one who is monos. On the other hand, the two most influential monasteries of the East--St. John of Studios and St. Sabbas of Jerusalem, were urban establishments in the middle of great cities, and both had extensive and free interaction with the society around them. As the saying goes, the monk withdraws from the world to return to it.

[GL]

By the way, you are correct, the president is not supposed to be a dictator, but he is supposed to have sufficient leadership skills to actually enact his agenda and not merely warm the seat for four or eight years, raising money for his library and planning his state funeral. Lead, follow or get out of the way. Our current president is one of the sorriest excuses for a leader we have had in the White House in my lifetime. Only Jimmy Carter stands as a challenger. Six years with majorities in both houses of Congress and what do we have to show for it that will last much beyond noon on January 20, 2009? Robert and Alito and seven years without anymore terrorist attacks. Not much else that isn't of more interest to Democrats than Republicans.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>By the way, you are correct, the president is not supposed to be a dictator, but he is supposed to have sufficient leadership skills to actually enact his agenda and not merely warm the seat for four or eight years, raising money for his library and planning his state funeral.<<<

That's a rather exalted, indeed, may I say, "imperial" view of the Presidency, once which has only really gained currency in the 20th century. Throughout the 19th century, the rule was the president was "chief executive"--that is, he executed the laws passed by Congress. Few Presidents actually HAD an agenda, and most would have considered it impertinent to have one. The few who did are the exception--and most of them got into serious difficulties for their presumption, unless they were acting in a national emergency. And only one 19th century President meets that criterion.

That's why Teddy Roosevelt was seen as a dangerous anomaly--he went over the heads of Congress to talk directly to the American people--something he could do because of modern transportation and the beginnings of modern communications. Wilson was another activist President, but history has been less than kind to his legacy. After him, we have more sedate, caretaker presidents like Harding and Coolidge. But with the stock market crash, we see the reemergence of the activist president, first in Hoover, then in Roosevelt (the only difference between the two, really, was that Hoover had respect for the Constitution, while Roosevelt had respect for Roosevelt). Truman tried to bridge the gap, being both less activist yet also the inheritor of the FDR mantle. Ike tried to roll back the clock further, but the presidencies of JKF, LBJ, Nixon, and even Carter put the activist model firmly in place. Reagan had no choice but to be activist if he wanted to roll back the interventionist state. Surprisingly, Clinton was one of the least activist presidents, at least from his second term, because, well, thanks to Monica Lewinsky, he had his political nuts cut off, which made him ever so much more docile and manageable.

So, when you postulate your definition of the President as Leader (capital L), just remember that this is a very recent development, one that quite a lot of people (I'm agnostic) consider undesirable. Interestingly, a lot of people who rail against Bush and the reemergence of the "Imperial Presidency" say they are voting for Obama. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? Or perhaps just rank hypocrisy?

[DGP]

>>I challenge you to find even one teacher of our faith whose name anyone would recognize and who was not otherwise a heretic who held otherwise before the twentieth century. I have made that challenge on many occasions and for many years and I'm still waiting for even one name.

I don't remember ever seeing it put that way. I think it's rather clever of you.

[Jim Kushiner]

Certainly the ancient penitentials of the church differentiate between contraception and abortion. Am I right about that? Murder is murder. Contraception is wrong, but it is not murder. In the eyes of God a given act of contraception may be a worse sin at a given time--He sees the heart and its rebellions and deceit. But formally, abortion being murder stands apart.

My point about the destruction of Roe is not that this is a pro-life tactic that will end abortion: it would certainly end *some* but my real point is that it is a cancerous lie from beginning to end. Such a falsehood at the heart of any legal system will bring down a nation. It not only does not deserve our protection, it is not fit to survive. If a nation cannot repent of its lies about something so basic as when a human life begins, then perhaps it should openly enshrine into law these words, that women and girls(men too?) have the right to kill the human beings they have conceived in their wombs, that these human beings do not have any intrinsic rights to life, and that further, the mother has a right to see to it the child targeted for abortion is killed, even if he/she survives the abortion.

While we're at it, let's be clear that the universal right to health care articulated by my Senator Obama last night includes the right to be enabled (given the means and the money as needed) to kill any unborn child as noted above, and further, we should add, that any child surviving an abortion does NOT have the right to medical care but is to be considered the mere property of "its" mother/father who will decide "its" fate without interference of the state, and indeed, with the empowerment of the state. Paganism: Are we there yet?

[GL]

Jim,

With all due respect, the comparison is not abortion to contracepting. The comparison is voting for a pro-choice candidate to contracepting. I have never knowingly voted for a pro-choice candidate, but I believe it is hypocritical to condemn those who do as not being "good Christians on this morally transcendent issue" when the accuser does not hold that same view of other actions which also contribute to the culture of death and which without a question impact the rate of abortion and even its continued legality.

Why is voting for a pro-choice candidate, not because they are pro-choice but because of other reasons (such as distrust of the sincerity of the pro-life candidate's commitment to the pro-life causes and a belief that the policies proposed by the pro-choice candidate might actually lead to fewer abortions) worse than contracepting? I happen to disagree with the logic of such voters; in fact, I believe they are wrong in their analysis and in the way they plan to vote. That, however, is not what was said; they were called "not good Christians." Well, if that is going to be the label applied, then the issue becomes what other action which contribute to the culture of death makes one not a good Christian. Am I being a bad Christian if I vote for a candidate whose policies I believe are likely to lead to more abortions (i.e., more murdered babies) even if he declares himself to be pro-life? I voted twice for G.W. Bush, under whose administration the rate of abortions rose as compared to the administration of Bill Clinton. I am now contemplating voting for a man who favors federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, that is, John McCain. Why wouldn't my past votes be an indication that I am, to that extent a bad Christian?

Two other regular posters on MC were strong supporters of Rudy Guiliani for president. I argued vigorously against their support of him precisely because of his position on abortion. I did not, however, ever accuse them of not being good Christians because of their support of Guiliani. Indeed, I have no reason to believe they are anything other than good Christians, even though I believe they were wrong in supporting Guiliani. They, in fact, held that supporting him was not a pro-abortion vote as the rate of abortion in N.Y. actually dropped during his administration. I can disagree with their support of a particular candidate without calling into question their status as good Christians.

So, to me, the issue is not a comparison of abortion and contraception, it is a whether one should label others who vote for a candidate they oppose as not being "good Christians on this morally transcendent issue." That vote, no matter how much I might disagree with it, is not the sole single cause of the death of 1.1 million babies per year nor is it demonstrably worse than other acts which the Catholic Church declares to be intrinsically evil. It is, in fact, the age old practice of condemning others while exonerating oneself. Again, it violates the injunction of Matthew 7:1-5.

And, frankly, it demonstrates too great a reliance on Caesar to solve our moral problems and too little reliance on obedience to our Lord as the way to be salt and light in a lost world. And that is a fundamental problem with conservative Christians in the 21st century; we look to Caesar and the tools of the state rather than to our Lord and obedience to His will as the primary means of changing our culture.

I will now refrain from further posts on this thread. Others may have the last word.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

GL: "Why is voting for a pro-choice candidate, not because they are pro-choice but because of other reasons (such as distrust of the sincerity of the pro-life candidate's commitment to the pro-life causes and a belief that the policies proposed by the pro-choice candidate might actually lead to fewer abortions) worse than contracepting?"

I believe Francesca and other Barack Obama Christian supporters would be greatly heartened and encouraged by your comments, GL.

Francesca: "In short, Democrats favor policies that have been shown to substantially *reduce* abortion rates in most First World countries.

By contrast, many Republican policies are more likely to encourage abortion. Severe economic hardship for some, difficulty in obtaining health care (McCain has even proposed taxing health benefits!), the expense of putting multiple children through college, ignorance about sexuality, and limited access to contraception all correlate with higher abortion rates.

As a realist, I understand that an anti-abortion vote for the Republican Party is merely symbolic. [After all, we know that many GOP voters are contracepting]."

GL: "Jim,

With all due respect, the comparison is not abortion to contracepting."

As much as you deny it, you are making that comparison.

"The comparison is voting for a pro-choice candidate to contracepting."

Please. Your inability to reason through distinctions is blinding you. Let's let you continue on your high horse before rebutting.

"I have never knowingly voted for a pro-choice candidate, but I believe it is hypocritical to condemn those who do as not being "good Christians on this morally transcendent issue" when the accuser does not hold that same view of other actions which also contribute to the culture of death and which without a question impact the rate of abortion and even its continued legality."

Labrialumn: "GL, even the Roman Catholic Church discerns between murder and contraception. And allows NFP, which by your definition, would be contraception."

Jim Kushiner: "Certainly the ancient penitentials of the church differentiate between contraception and abortion. Am I right about that? Murder is murder. Contraception is wrong, but it is not murder. In the eyes of God a given act of contraception may be a worse sin at a given time--He sees the heart and its rebellions and deceit. But formally, abortion being murder stands apart."

Amen and amen. Let's look at the Catholic Church. They have, in no uncertain terms, condemned abortion. There are official communications. And we have seen "Priests for Life." So as far as I understand (please correct me if I'm mistaken), the Catholic Church implicitly encourages its members to vote against pro-abortion politicians and policies.

Simultaneously, the Catholic Church condemns contraception. Yet over half of Catholic parishioners practice contraception according to estimates in published reports. Is the Catholic Church "hypocritical" then because they are putting a greater emphasis in reducing abortions from seeking to overturn pro-abortion law instead of vigorously preaching and enforcing how bad contraception is according to official Church teaching? Is the Catholic Church guilty of what you repeatedly assert: Demonstrating "too great a reliance on Caesar to solve our moral problems and too little reliance on obedience to our Lord as the way to be salt and light in a lost world."?

Honestly, if I were Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or Ted Kennedy, and I was invited to have a meeting with my bishop to discuss my legislative support for pro-abortion laws, I would invoke the "GL" defense! I would do as you do. I, Nancy Pelosi, would keep hammering and hammering and hammering and hammering away at the issue of contraception and asking why isn't the Catholic Church more vigorously pursuing contraception.

Nancy Pelosi should say what you say, GL: "[I]t is hypocritical [for the bishops] to condemn those who do [vote for pro-abortion policies or pro-abortion politicians] as not being "good Christians on this morally transcendent issue" when the accuser [the Church] does not hold that same view of other actions [contraception] which also contribute to the culture of death and which without a question impact the rate of abortion and even its continued legality."

P.S. GL: "Two other regular posters on MC were strong supporters of Rudy Guiliani for president."

Stuart Koehl and Judy Warner, I presume?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

GL: "So, to me, the issue is not a comparison of abortion and contraception, it is a whether one should label others who vote for a candidate they oppose as not being "good Christians on this morally transcendent issue."

James Kushiner with implicit reference to pastors Wallis, Campolo, Hunter and other Christians who support the DNC platform or process: "Why does the image of Neville Chamberlain come to mind? A sorry state of mind."

Me: "Liberal Christians voting for Barack Obama and who know full well of Barack Obama's militant pro-abortion position and voting record are ....

not good Christians on this morally transcendent issue."

GL, if Jim Kushiner wants to retract his statement about the image of Neville Chamberlain coming to mind given your repeated criticisms and charges of hypocrisy with regards to the issue of contraception, he may.

But I won't retract my statement.

Pax.

[Joe Long]

A lot of frustration out there, with the election that's coming and the disaster for antiabortionists that might follow (among all of the other disasters). I share the frustration.

On the contraception/abortion comparison, a final point: this discussion is still going on in a political context, though GL speculates that we shall shortly be shut out of the political context entirely. (When and if we are, his level-headed advice will be invaluable.)

But while we can still operate in a political context...there's an important line, to me, between the abortion and contraception debates - and not the one we've beeen discussing. Simply put, the government has a duty to pass and enforce laws against murder; but so far as I can see, it has not only no duty, but no right, to regulate contraception.

So vote against abortion, politically; but the only way you can vote for fruitful multiplication, is on a more...personal level. So, like good Chicago activists, "vote early and often" (after you get your "registration" ceremony duly witnessed, of course).

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart Koehl and Judy Warner, I presume?<<<

For entirely defensible reasons.

First, Giuliani really did separate his personal preference from his political views. He did very little, as mayor of New York, to make abortions easier to get; in fact, he did quite a lot that reduced the number of abortions taking place in the city.

Second, Giuliani expressed a judicial philosophy inclined towards strict constructionism and originalism, which applied to nominees to the Federal Courts--including the Supreme Court--would have brought about an environment more hospitable to restricting abortion and overturning Roe.

Third, Giuliani eventually did endorse the right to life plank of the Republican party. My overall prudential assessment of his effect on the abortion issue was at worst there would be no change from the current policies of the government, at best we would see the preconditions set for removing the issue from the courts and returning it to the state legislatures, where it belongs.

On the other hand, and in comparison, Barack Obama's position on abortion is actually more extreme than that of the Democratic Party, he endorses infanticide, he wants to extend the "right" to an abortion, and he would allow abortions to be covered by Federal health programs. Giuliani or Obama? No brainer in my book.

But suppose theDemocratic winner had been Hillary? Actually still a no brainer, because Hillary's liberal orthodoxy on the issue is only marginally less objectionable than that of Barack Obama.

Rule number one in politics: Never make better the enemy of good enough.

Rule number two: If you don't win, you don't get to play.

Finally, I will remind everyone that my primary issue, now as then, is still the war. My second most important issue is the war. And my third most important issue is the war.

Giuliani would have won it. McCain will win it. Neither Obama nor Clinton would. Neither, for that matter, would Mike Huckabee, who, by the way, makes Sarah Palin look like Prince Wenzel von Metternich on foreign policy and Frederich Hayek on economics. I can't believe some of you loons actually gave such a featherweight Elmer Gantry wannabe the time of day.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Whoowhoowhoowhoo! Whoowhoowhoowhoo!

[David Gray]

>Mike Huckabee, who, by the way, makes Sarah Palin look like Prince Wenzel von Metternich on foreign policy and Frederich Hayek on economics

Funny, I thought Huckabee makes you look like Gomer Pyle...

[Rob G]

"I can't believe some of you loons actually gave such a featherweight Elmer Gantry wannabe the time of day."

Anyone that the neo-cons hated that much was as least worth a look, IMO. Kinda like Reagan considering ACLU derision a badge of honor.

[Stuart Koehl]

Define "neo-con". You've been asked many times, never bothered to respond.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Funny, I thought Huckabee makes you look like Gomer Pyle...<<<

Who said Calvinists have no sense of humor?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>.Whoowhoowhoowhoo! Whoowhoowhoowhoo!<<<

OK, now THAT was funny! But I notice the dimwitted Evangelical populist loon was somehow omitted from the recordings.

[David Gray]

>You've been asked many times, never bothered to respond.

He's a wise man...

[W.E.D. Godbold]

You need (1) good instincts (2) good character (3) something of a reflective nature, and (4) opportunity to reflect to be a good conviction politician (the only kind, to my mind, worth supporting). Huckabee seemed to have the first three. He just hadn't had enough opportunity for the last one for somebody aspiring to national office. His quick rise took him by surprise and one doesn't get opportunity for reflection while campaigning (nor much while governing, I suspect. I read that Kissinger once said that you had better have a lot of built up intellectual capital when you come to Washington because you aren't going to have time to build it once you get there. Reagan had thought and wrote a *lot* about the things that animated him before he got to the White House) I trust Huck would have changed his mind on a number of issues, though not on the ones I liked him for supporting, of course. :-)

[Rob G]

I don't recall being asked, but briefly, I'd say that a neo-con is a conservative who believes in an activist, preemptive foreign policy, and in the idea of extending U.S. hegemony (i.e., "freedom and democracy) around the world, by force if necessary. They tend to view market and economic issues as more important than cultural and social ones. One might say that they are like libertarians with a Wilsonian foreign policy, but that's not quite it, because many neo-cons are perfectly happy with a sizable welfare state.

Of course, there is a somewhat wide range of neo-cons; some don't hold all of these tenets with equal degrees of attachment. But I'd say that what I've described are the views of the neo-con movement in general.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Denny Burk: "For all their differences on matters of Christian theology, Evangelicals and Catholics are cobelligerents in their opposition to abortion. Moreover, not only do both groups oppose abortion, but many Evangelicals and Catholics would insist that defending the unborn is a transcendent moral value.

That’s why I posted this video. It strikes just the right note in that regard. I hope many people will see it and hearts and minds will be won to use their democratic privileges for the protection of the unborn."

Joe Long: "But while we can still operate in a political context...there's an important line, to me, between the abortion and contraception debates - and not the one we've beeen discussing. Simply put, the government has a duty to pass and enforce laws against murder; but so far as I can see, it has not only no duty, but no right, to regulate contraception."

Excellent point, Joe. Definitive. Although some might hurl this accusation containing a false dichotomy against your point: "it demonstrates too great a reliance on Caesar to solve our moral problems and too little reliance on obedience to our Lord as the way to be salt and light in a lost world."

[GL]

Well, I may have trouble defining the term, but I know one when I read or hear him. ;-)

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I think it's a good thing that only Jesus gets to judge us on our loyalty to him. For this reason, I agree with Greg that using terms like "bad" or "good" Christians is not helpful. There are plenty of other ways to communicate that get the point across that don't also presume to judge the relationship of the other person to Jesus. I'm personally in favor of a greater use of the terms "human ghoul", "apostle of anti-life", and "moral monster". (But then, I played *way* too much AD&D back in the day.)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Well, I may have trouble defining the term, but I know one when I read or hear him. ;-)<<<

So, Theodore Roosevelt was a neo-conservative/ Who knew!

[GL]

>>>Simply put, the government has a duty to pass and enforce laws against murder; but so far as I can see, it has not only no duty, but no right, to regulate contraception."

Excellent point, Joe. Definitive. Although some might hurl this accusation containing a false dichotomy against your point: "it demonstrates too great a reliance on Caesar to solve our moral problems and too little reliance on obedience to our Lord as the way to be salt and light in a lost world." <<<

Of course, government did in fact regulate contraception up until the summer of 1965, when the Supreme Court struck down those regulations as unconstitutional in Griswold v. Connecticut. Interestingly enough, it was in that case that Justice Douglas created out of whole cloth the right to privacy. Less than eight years later, Justice Blackmun relied on this newly "discovered" right to privacy to do the same thing to the laws against abortion which his brethern had done to the laws against contraception in Griswold. And just five years ago, Justice Kennedy used this same "right" to strike down the laws against sodomy. Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts relied, in part, on this same right to strike down that state's law limiting marriage to one man and one woman. In between Griswold, which only applied to married couples, and Roe, the Court extended its holding that regulations against contraception were unconstitutional to unmarried couples and minors.

So, in fact, the idea that government has no right to regulate contraception is just over 40 years old and was first "discovered" by one of the most liberal justices in Supreme Court history, William O. Douglas. Further, it is the "discovery" of such a right that led directly to holdings that unmarried couples have a constitutional right to contracept, that minors have a constitutional right to contracept, that woman have a constitutional right to murder their unborn children, that those of the same sex have a constitutional right to commit "the abominable crime not fit to be named among Christians" (as the old cases phrase it), and that men have a constitutional right to marry men and that women have a constitutional right to marry women.

[GL]

>>>But then, I played *way* too much AD&D back in the day.<<<

This revelation explains a lot. ;-)

>>>So, Theodore Roosevelt was a neo-conservative/ Who knew!<<<

Well, now that you mention it, actually, yes.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I will now refrain from further posts on this thread. Others may have the last word.

Posted by: GL | Oct 9, 2008 1:28:16 AM

Well, I may have trouble defining the term, but I know one when I read or hear him. ;-)

Posted by: GL | Oct 9, 2008 12:39:18 PM

-------------------------

The promise to refrain lasted almost 12 hours!

;-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Well, now that you mention it, actually, yes.<<<

And also Alexander Hamilton?

[Rob G]

"So, Theodore Roosevelt was a neo-conservative. Who knew!"

'Well, now that you mention it, actually, yes.'

TR was a bit too much of a 'Ducks Unlimited' type to be a real neo-con.

[GL]

From today's Office of Readings, a letter from St. John Leonardi to Pope Paul V:

Those who want to work for moral reform in the world must seek the glory of God before all else.  Because he is the source of all good, they must wait for His help, and pray for it in this difficult and necessary undertaking.  They must then present themselves to those they seek to reform, as mirrors of every virtue and as lamps on a lamp stand.  Their upright lives and noble conduct must shine before all those who are in the house of God.  In this way they will gently entice the members to reform instead of forcing them, lest, in the words of the Council of Trent, they demand of the body what is nor found in the head, and thus upset the whole order of the Lord’s household.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>So, in fact, the idea that government has no right to regulate contraception is just over 40 years old and was first "discovered" by one of the most liberal justices in Supreme Court history, William O. Douglas. <<<

Quite true, but also irrelevant to the behavior of most Americans. Those who wanted it could get it. And, in fact, the United States Government encouraged its use by America's finest, the boys in uniform. Not only were condoms freely dispensed, they were in fact forced on troops going on furlough. They were also handed out at the doors of the government-approved brothels in such home port or garrison towns as San Diego and Honolulu.

Of course, they were for the "prevention of disease only". Later, they were even put into the "assault ration pack", but then the excuse was to seal the barrels of rifles from sand and sea water when storming over the beach. In reality, the brass cared little about the soldiers' rifles--they didn't want to lose manpower when their guns got jammed.

Now, Griswold was important, but not for the reason you give. It did not suddenly make available something which was unavailable. it made acceptable and open something which was previously covert and scandalous. In this, they were not too different from sodomy laws, which were seldom enforced and had mainly symbolic value. Their main function was to keep behind closed doors things that it was generally agreed should stay behind closed doors. It's a shame Griswold didn't understand the importance of this concept, because he could have gotten a raincoat for his little willy without too much trouble--but he wanted to be "open", which is seldom a good thing, in my experience.

[Joe Long]

>>>So, Theodore Roosevelt was a neo-conservative/ Who knew!<<<

Well, you should know by the name Roosevelt. Or (nudge nudge!) "Roosenfelt", you know.

Actually, T.R.'s preferences in my opinion fit part, but not all, of "an activist, preemptive foreign policy, and in the idea of extending U.S. hegemony (i.e., 'freedom and democracy') around the world, by force if necessary". Activist, pre-emptive, but not "around the world" (other than in the literal, Great White Fleet sense), nor necessarily a strictly-American definition of "freedom and democracy" (he was a great friend of Meiji Japan). He was indeed a hawk, of course - but faced with Arab indignities, ordered a punitive expedition, not an attempt at transformation of any Arab society.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>TR was a bit too much of a 'Ducks Unlimited' type to be a real neo-con.<<<

Dick Cheney belongs to "Ducks Unlimited". I would not be surprised to discover that Sarah Palin belongs, too. Of course, so far her preference seems to follow TR's penchant for BIG game.

[GL]

>>>And also Alexander Hamilton?<<<

No, I don't think so. I don't recall Hamilton calling on Washington to send the navy on a muscle-flexing voyage around the globe.

>>>TR was a bit too much of a 'Ducks Unlimited' type to be a real neo-con.<<<

I don't know, wasn't it while hunting birds that our neo-con VP became only the second VP to shoot someone while in office? ;-) (Ironically, the first such VP shot Alexander Hamilton.)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Activist, pre-emptive, but not "around the world" (other than in the literal, Great White Fleet sense),<<<

Don't forget on whose watch the Philippine rebellion was finally suppressed, on whose watch we began our active interventions in Central America, and who intervened to settle (not very well, as it turned out) the Russo-Japanese War. Not to mention who was hot to get into World War I, even before the Lusitania Incident. TR's ambitions were limited only by U.S. military and economic power, nothing more.

[Stuart Koehl]

But now I'm getting nostalgic. I think I'll go watch "The Wind and the Lion".

[Rob G]

The original neo-cons were mostly former leftists. Many contemporary ones are neo-cons only by default, being ignorant of the other major strand(s) of conservatism.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I don't know, wasn't it while hunting birds that our neo-con VP became only the second VP to shoot someone while in office? ;-) (Ironically, the first such VP shot Alexander Hamilton.)<<<

Hunt long enough, you're bound to see an accident or two. But then, this puts us back to "The Wind and the Lion", when John Hay (played with delightful sliminess by John Houston) admonishes Teddy for his recklessness:

John Hay: Theodore! You are dangerous. You might even shoot somebody - accidentally I mean.

Theodore Roosevelt: John, I'd never shoot anyone accidentally. I need their votes.

John Hay: Madness!

[Joe Long]

GL, point well taken; I should have specified that the FEDERAL government has no conceivable right (pun intended) to regulate contraception. (Don't even bother to remind me how many OTHER things which they have no right to do, they do routinely...I'm annoyed enough with them right now as it is.)

[GL]

>>>Now, Griswold was important, but not for the reason you give.<<<

Well, first, I was pointing out that in fact the government had exercised a "right" to restrict contraceptive, counter Joe's post.

Second, I was not asserting that Griswold suddenly resulted in a vast increase in the use of contraceptives (though birth rates did fall after it was handed down, but that was probably more related to the advent of the pill than to the holding in Griswold. I was demonstrating that Griswold was important is that it laid the legal foundation upon which Roe, Lawrence and Goodridge were built and, so, lead directly to the constitutional "rights" to murder unborn children, commit "the abominable crime not fit to be named among Christians," and for those of the same-sex to "marry" each other. Thus, from a legal standpoint, those who demanded a constitutional "right" to contracept are responsible for the constitutional "rights" to murder unborn children, to commit sodomy and to have state recognition of same-sex "marriage."

[DGP]

>>They tend to view market and economic issues as more important than cultural and social ones. One might say that they are like libertarians with a Wilsonian foreign policy, but that's not quite it, because many neo-cons are perfectly happy with a sizable welfare state.

Excuse me, but the definition of "neo-con" needs a lot of work. These two sentences appear to be rather contradictory. The former sounds much more paleo-con than neo-con.

>>I should have specified that the FEDERAL government has no conceivable right (pun intended)

That's much more palatable. One of the lunacies of Griswold v. Connecticut is the conflation of a right to regulate public commerce with a right to inspect the "marriage chamber" to enforce a ban on contraception. The law is plainly capable of splitting much finer hairs, but in this case SCOTUS seemed unable to distinguish the regulation of licensed pharmacists from stormtroopers interrupting someone's coitus. (Another pun intended.)