Born: June 9, 1972
« Billy Graham Crusade.… | Home | Derrida is dead... »
October 08, 2004 at 10:38 am
White House or Crock Pot? (The political stew continues to boil.)
The second presidential debate is on tonight. Because of this, I was motivated to go back and look at the ultra-scientifc Presidential Poll that I took a few days back. Surprisingly the voting stopped at a dead tie: 26 to 26. Even more surprising were the polling numbers that I heard on the news today. In a poll of Missouri voters, the score was 50% to 47% with Kerry in the lead. In an overall poll of American voters the score was 47% to 47%... I guess my little polling experiment was actually more accurate than I could have ever expected.
Last week, at Impact Group, we began a discussion of all things political. It was a great conversation, but none of us were really all that knowledgable about any one subject. Over the last week, we have all been choosing subjects to investigate and come back to share with everyone next week. It should be quite an informative night.
Anyway, my feeling is that, so far, the debates have been less than stellar. Because of this, I wanted to outline a few points that I feel are still bothering me and making it hard for me to make any solid decisions. There are a bunch of things (e.g., wellfare, jobs, health care, etc.) that I won’t even mention here — all of which I’m sure I’ll have much more to talk about after my Impact Group meets again next week.
I’ll list my limited list of points and then explain them a little better afterwards:
- The “war”
- Abortion
- “Killing”
- Nationalism & Moralism
- Integrity
- Honesty
1. The “war.” Everyone who reads my Blog surely knows that I don’t agree with the war in Iraq (or war in general for that matter). But, Jared (a commentor here) made a good point recently:
at this critical juncture in history, it doesnt make sense to vote for such drastic change…we’re smack in the middle of all this junk right now. to change leadership in the middle of it all could be detrimental…at this point it would be foolish to make a head transplant.This could definitely be a reason to keep Bush in office. Yes, he made the wrong decision. Yes, we are paying for it dearly. But, knowing humankind’s resitance to change, would a new man in office be the answer? (Whether he had the correct answers or not.)
2. Abortion. Read a quote from Lloyd Nichol’s Blog:
And what about Abortion? I am personally against abortion. (My sister has had two abortions and I tried to talk her out of them.) However, I don’t think abortion should be made illegal. I feel the choice should be an individual one and if a christian believes it is wrong, he or she should try convince that individual. By legislating morality we end up creating a resentment in people that don’t share that morality.(Read the rest here.)
I don’t know if I have much more to add to this. I am torn between the ideas of having our government regulate our “morals” or us (as individuals) being responsible. But, is abortion murder or just killing?
3. “Killing.” Yesterday, I wrote an entry that outlined a couple of differences bewtween “murder” and “killing” (you can read that here).
I don’t often quote myself, but for the sake of clarity:
[D]id you know that in the original Hebrew for the word “kill” is “ratsach,” which actually means “murder”?...”[K]ill” simply means, “to deprive of life.” This can refer to anything from someone’s dreams to a Thanksgiving turkey. “Murder,” on the other hand, means, “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.” This means that though the distinction between killing and murder is quite clear, the implications on us, as individuals becomes a little foggy (e.g., self-defense is killing, but not murder, war could be killing or murder, depending on how you look at it — in fact, so could abortion really).That gives you a little idea of the origins of the word anyway. What I want to talk about today, though, is the use of the word “kill” by both the President/Vice President and John Kerry/John Edwards. I don’t like it at all. Regardless of your opinion on either side’s stance on the war, both sides repeatedly use the word “kill” when referring to terrorists.
From John Kerry at the Vice-Presidential Debate the other night:
What John Kerry said — and it’s just as clear as day to anybody who was listening — he said: We will find terrorists where they are and kill them before they ever do harm to the American people, first.Ok, most of us might think: Kill terrorists? Yeah, we should kill terrorists. In my opinion, though, this blatant disregard for the use of the word “kill” is extremely dangerous and definitely not Christ-like. In fact, I think that the word “kill” is being used wrong and that the word they should really be using is “murder.”
4. Nationalism & Moralism. I have two questions. Are we “right” because we’re American? Is it the United States’ job to regulate moralism worldwide? You can read more on my thoughts about this here (which is the same Blog entry I linked to above). Read the comments too.
5. Integrity. Why does George Bush cling to his decisions as if they were unbreakable edicts? Isn’t a trait of a man with integrity the ability to admit when he’s wrong? Now, I understand that for all intents and purposes, Bush feels that he has been right in all of his decision-making, which makes this issue difficult, but he’s not even willing to discuss the issue. No, Bush is right and everyone else is wrong (or they flip-flop). I desire a President who is able to admit mistakes and afterwards apologize to whomever he transgressed. I like Kerry because of this trait. I would like Bush a whole lot better if he had this trait.
6. Honesty. There are plenty of examples about how both sides haven’t been completely honest with us. And I do get that feeling from both sides. I want to feel like no matter what, good or bad, the President will tell us about it.
7. Looks. Wait… Number 7?! Is it just me or does George W look like Alfred E. Newman. Now, Kerry isn’t the best looking guy either, but I just can’t decide whether I like big ears or long faces better. (Ok, so I couldn’t remain serious for this entire entry.)
Needless to say, since posting the Presidential Poll I haven’t gotten much closer to making a decision. I have gotten closer to some of the issues, though, and I think that it is a good start. As the last of the days before the election dwindle, I can only hope that I become more reslute — once that pin punches a whole in the card, It’s done.
&bodytext=[[image:whitehouse.jpg:White House or Crock Pot?:right:0]]The second presidential debate is on tonight. Because of this, I was motivated to go back and…&topic=Politics title=){kind=small}
Digg This Story | 
Save This Page
No Trackbacks
Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (35)
Thanks, for pointing that our Jared. I did not mean to say that the issue of abortion lay specifically on semantics. But, as far as law is concerned, “killing” should not be illegal — the government does it, right? But “murder” on the other hand (i.e., “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought” ) is, of course illegal. In any case, I was just trying to make the point that what both Bush & Kerry should be saying is: “We will murder the terrorists.”
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on October 08, 2004 at 8:27 pm
ha, yeah, i followed you on that part but for some reason i didnt make the connection to the abortion statement. ha! my bad. :)
» Comment by jared () , on October 08, 2004 at 8:53 pm
This is a very good summary and I don’t really have much to add.
On the abortion issue, I also personally oppose it, but do not believe making it illegal will really solve anything. I see it as a hearts and minds issue – until we as a culture really value life, the law is pretty irrelevant.
On the killing vs. murder issue. From a public policy perspective, I don’t think it is especially helpful to think of it as murder. We deal with murderers by throwing them in prison or executing them. Does anyone really think we should imprison those responsible for abortions? Who should we punish? The pregnant women? The fathers? The doctors? It gets to be a long list.
From a policy perspective, the reality is that children die as a result of legal abortion. We also know that approximately 50,000 people will die this year in auto accidents. Millions will die of preventable disease. We don’t prosecute auto manufacturers for the accidental deaths. Our society is making a value judgement about life. We choose the freedom of automotive travel over the lives of those we know will be taken in accidents. We choose the “choice” of pregnant women over the rights of their unborn children.
I think abortion is horrible. I wish there would never be another abortion in the world. But when was the last time our laws changed the underlying social/ethical value structure of society? When our values change, our laws follow. Until we decide to value life, I don’t think the law makes much of a difference.
Sorry for the long comment.
On the abortion issue, I also personally oppose it, but do not believe making it illegal will really solve anything. I see it as a hearts and minds issue – until we as a culture really value life, the law is pretty irrelevant.
On the killing vs. murder issue. From a public policy perspective, I don’t think it is especially helpful to think of it as murder. We deal with murderers by throwing them in prison or executing them. Does anyone really think we should imprison those responsible for abortions? Who should we punish? The pregnant women? The fathers? The doctors? It gets to be a long list.
From a policy perspective, the reality is that children die as a result of legal abortion. We also know that approximately 50,000 people will die this year in auto accidents. Millions will die of preventable disease. We don’t prosecute auto manufacturers for the accidental deaths. Our society is making a value judgement about life. We choose the freedom of automotive travel over the lives of those we know will be taken in accidents. We choose the “choice” of pregnant women over the rights of their unborn children.
I think abortion is horrible. I wish there would never be another abortion in the world. But when was the last time our laws changed the underlying social/ethical value structure of society? When our values change, our laws follow. Until we decide to value life, I don’t think the law makes much of a difference.
Sorry for the long comment.
» Comment by Brian () (URL), on October 08, 2004 at 9:00 pm
I wonder if “murdering” terrorists is really murder? I think the reason why both Kerry and Bush use the term “kill” rather than “murder” is because they believe that “killing” terrorists prevents future murder by those particular terrorists. Does the definition of murder address self-defense and would you consider killing a terrorist self-defense?
» Comment by Doug Hensley () , on October 08, 2004 at 9:35 pm
what about “whacking” the terrorosts? i would vote for whoever used that term.
» Comment by Zach Lind () , on October 08, 2004 at 11:50 pm
I agree. I don’t think abortion will go away through legislation. But legislative activity does at least keep a yin to the yang in the political arena and balance is always a good thing. Just a little numbers reminder. There have been over 40,000,000 abortions in America since Roe v. Wade. Even if it isn’t outlawed, there are ways to make it not so accesible, in particular, parental consent, which worth pursing. I think when we minimalize the abortion issue to two options, we are reducing a very physical and personal issue to a philosphical one. There’s way more to it than that.
» Comment by lisa () (URL), on October 09, 2004 at 2:32 pm
40 MILLION!!! It’s so easy to just zip past that number and not think about it. That’s a whole generation, gone. It seems that we fight for everything in America… animals must not be treated cruely, bird sanctuaries must be preserved, coffee should be fair trade, nuclear weapons must be reduced or eliminated; but, well, “nothings going to change with abortion anyway”. If there was ever a reason to fight or protest or mourn it would be the blatant destruction of MY generation and the ease with which it is done. To marginalize it as a non-issue this election is a mistake. Personally, I say nothing is going to change with this war. Both candidates have admitted that. But, there is a very clear choice for me on the abortion issue only: with Bush abortion will be more limited than it has been and Kerry will fight any reason to limit abortion, including parental notification and the disgusting practice of partial-birth abortion.
» Comment by Paul () , on October 09, 2004 at 7:03 pm
As to the integrity issue, I think we have to understand that Bush is smack dab in the middle of a war with our troops on the ground and other countries troops on the ground. For him to say “I made a mistake going into Iraq” right now would undermine everything that they must now finish – whether it was a mistake or not. I thought what he said last night was appropriate – I will let history judge whether I made good decisions or not. Right now he has to stand by his decisions.
» Comment by Dean () , on October 09, 2004 at 8:06 pm
dean, i am totally against this war and i do think this war was a big mistake on the part of the president and his administration. with that said, it would be completely acceptible to me if the president levelled with us saying something like “yes, i made a mistake sending our military to war because the premise for this war, the immediate threat to our country, does not exist as we thought. although i do admit my mistake in sending us to war, that doesn’t change the fact that we are still there and we need to fully support our troops and the iraqi people by finishing what we have started.”
i would actually respect bush if he said something along these lines. we just had the official government report that shows us that the sanctions had worked to bring saddam’s weapons program to a complete halt. we also ignored hans blix’s report that there were no weapons. but i guess for bush and cheney, up is down. no weapons meant we were in danger. we invade countries with no weapons, but hold hands with countries we do? that’s just really curious to me.
i would actually respect bush if he said something along these lines. we just had the official government report that shows us that the sanctions had worked to bring saddam’s weapons program to a complete halt. we also ignored hans blix’s report that there were no weapons. but i guess for bush and cheney, up is down. no weapons meant we were in danger. we invade countries with no weapons, but hold hands with countries we do? that’s just really curious to me.
» Comment by Zach Lind () (URL), on October 09, 2004 at 9:50 pm
I know Zach, if Bush said that, I’d view him completely differenly too. Sort of like, “I got us into this mess. Respectfully, I’d love for you to give me the chance to get us out.”
» Comment by lisa () (URL), on October 10, 2004 at 3:29 pm
Wow, Zach, that would be a nice thing to hear! 
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on October 10, 2004 at 3:40 pm
Dean, Bush doesn’t have to wait around for history to judge whether his decisions were good or not. They weren’t. All he’s doing now is running the clock.
To say that admitting a mistake in Iraq undermines the war effort is pure politics. “Staying the course” — a phrase Bush 43 co-opted from Bush 41 — is all the Bush White House understands, and it’s what separates them from the Kerry campaign right now in the election cycle.
To admit such a failure is not unprecedented, either. When LBJ announced that he would not seek re-election in 1968, he was basically telling the American people he was in over his head in Vietnam. His admission of failure didn’t undermine the war effort — we were in Vietnam for another seven years.
What the Bush Administration is doing right now is much worse than not admitting a mistake. They’re changing excuses for the mistakes they’ve made after the evidence proves they were lying. “No WMDs? We already knew that. But Saddam would have gotten around to using them eventually. We’re sure of it.” And they’re looking the American people right in the eye when they say these things, even with the truth sitting right there on the table between us.
This is a president who promised “to restore integrity to the Oval Office,” but his administration has consistently lied to the American people and has not held itself accountable for anything that has gone wrong in the past four years. What you witnessed in Friday night’s debate was not resolve. It was hubris, a character flaw that dates back to Thucydides and which has toppled leaders much, much greater than George W. Bush.
Frankly, none of us can afford to wait around for history to judge him.
To say that admitting a mistake in Iraq undermines the war effort is pure politics. “Staying the course” — a phrase Bush 43 co-opted from Bush 41 — is all the Bush White House understands, and it’s what separates them from the Kerry campaign right now in the election cycle.
To admit such a failure is not unprecedented, either. When LBJ announced that he would not seek re-election in 1968, he was basically telling the American people he was in over his head in Vietnam. His admission of failure didn’t undermine the war effort — we were in Vietnam for another seven years.
What the Bush Administration is doing right now is much worse than not admitting a mistake. They’re changing excuses for the mistakes they’ve made after the evidence proves they were lying. “No WMDs? We already knew that. But Saddam would have gotten around to using them eventually. We’re sure of it.” And they’re looking the American people right in the eye when they say these things, even with the truth sitting right there on the table between us.
This is a president who promised “to restore integrity to the Oval Office,” but his administration has consistently lied to the American people and has not held itself accountable for anything that has gone wrong in the past four years. What you witnessed in Friday night’s debate was not resolve. It was hubris, a character flaw that dates back to Thucydides and which has toppled leaders much, much greater than George W. Bush.
Frankly, none of us can afford to wait around for history to judge him.
» Comment by Shepcat () (URL), on October 10, 2004 at 10:21 pm
I begin to feel ill whenever I hear someone trying to split hairs between being “personally opposed” to abortion but not wanting to prevent others from doing it.
Let’s put this in context: “I’m personally opposed to infanticide, but I don’t want to tell other mothers what to do with their newborns.”
“I’m personally opposed to child molestation, but I don’t want to tell other parents how to raise their children.”
Come on, people.
Abortion is the deliberate taking of innocent human life that has never had the chance to be born. It is vigorously supported by groups that want social control over the family and the profits of what has become a 90-billion dollar industry. It is wrong, and we should do all we can to prevent it from happening.
The church was established by Christ not only to cling to our Bibles and knock our knees until He returns. We are called to be salt and light to our culture. Salt is a preserving influence. Light exposes the wickedness within it and reveals the pathway to God through Christ.
I believe that being salt includes putting laws into effect that will serve the greater good and slow moral decay.
While the law cannot change the heart (that’s ultimately up to the Holy Spirit), it can modify behavior. And in a culture that has murdered 40 million of its, a reminder of the proper way to live in the form of a legal boundary is not something the church should be shying away from.
How in the world do we expect to change hearts in our culture if we refuse to stand for what we believe?
Let’s put this in context: “I’m personally opposed to infanticide, but I don’t want to tell other mothers what to do with their newborns.”
“I’m personally opposed to child molestation, but I don’t want to tell other parents how to raise their children.”
Come on, people.
Abortion is the deliberate taking of innocent human life that has never had the chance to be born. It is vigorously supported by groups that want social control over the family and the profits of what has become a 90-billion dollar industry. It is wrong, and we should do all we can to prevent it from happening.
The church was established by Christ not only to cling to our Bibles and knock our knees until He returns. We are called to be salt and light to our culture. Salt is a preserving influence. Light exposes the wickedness within it and reveals the pathway to God through Christ.
I believe that being salt includes putting laws into effect that will serve the greater good and slow moral decay.
While the law cannot change the heart (that’s ultimately up to the Holy Spirit), it can modify behavior. And in a culture that has murdered 40 million of its, a reminder of the proper way to live in the form of a legal boundary is not something the church should be shying away from.
How in the world do we expect to change hearts in our culture if we refuse to stand for what we believe?
» Comment by John Adams () (URL), on October 11, 2004 at 12:18 am
i find it fascinating that many believers who use the Jesus’ word of “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s” as an instruction for us to obey the law and to make sure we do “our christian duty” and vote. but when it comes to the law that makes abortion legal (or any law that doesn’t go along with their beliefs), that same scripture suddenly doesn’t apply.
i am not a expert on the roman law of Jesus’ day, but i would bet there were some pretty archaic and offensive laws on the books (especially from our perspective of free citizens in a democratic society). laws that would make us protest in outrage. but we really don’t see Jesus trying to bring change by getting a petition signed or lobbying with the lawmakers for his cause. he somehow finds a less obvious and more difficult but highly more effective way of bringing change.
it’s a lot easier for us to just fall back on lawmaking and legislation to get our way with moral issues. we trick ourselves into thinking we are making a true difference by merely voting for a certain candidate, protesting a planned parenthood, or putting a guilt trip bumper sticker on your car for all those abortionist to read and take note. these methods are mere cop outs, so we can feel good about how we are fighting the good fight and that we are “making a difference” in this immoral world.
imagine Jesus in John 8. what if instead of showing mercy to the adulteress, he went to the town lawmakers to plead for new/harsher/stricter laws for adulterers? that would be so…....not like Jesus.
Jesus does show us a way to deal with immorality, but his methods are much more dirty and messy and uncomfortable. we can’t hang, so we give up, or don’t even try. instead we end up telling everyone why they are wrong, we study our christian coalition voting guides, we stress about the ten commandments that are removed from the courthouse. and we wonder why we live in such an “immoral” world.
i am not a expert on the roman law of Jesus’ day, but i would bet there were some pretty archaic and offensive laws on the books (especially from our perspective of free citizens in a democratic society). laws that would make us protest in outrage. but we really don’t see Jesus trying to bring change by getting a petition signed or lobbying with the lawmakers for his cause. he somehow finds a less obvious and more difficult but highly more effective way of bringing change.
it’s a lot easier for us to just fall back on lawmaking and legislation to get our way with moral issues. we trick ourselves into thinking we are making a true difference by merely voting for a certain candidate, protesting a planned parenthood, or putting a guilt trip bumper sticker on your car for all those abortionist to read and take note. these methods are mere cop outs, so we can feel good about how we are fighting the good fight and that we are “making a difference” in this immoral world.
imagine Jesus in John 8. what if instead of showing mercy to the adulteress, he went to the town lawmakers to plead for new/harsher/stricter laws for adulterers? that would be so…....not like Jesus.
Jesus does show us a way to deal with immorality, but his methods are much more dirty and messy and uncomfortable. we can’t hang, so we give up, or don’t even try. instead we end up telling everyone why they are wrong, we study our christian coalition voting guides, we stress about the ten commandments that are removed from the courthouse. and we wonder why we live in such an “immoral” world.
» Comment by Zach Lind () (URL), on October 11, 2004 at 05:08 am
John ~ I agree with you…mostly.
What I don’t want to do, though, is make assumptions to the extent that abortion is in the same league as infantacide or child molestation. While I do think that abortion is inherently wrong (i.e., immoral or whatever), the law was set up to protect us from other people (e.g., an infant from a murderer or a child from a molester). An unborn child (whether a living human being or not) is still, in all intents and purposes, something that is part of the mother.
Example:
People say that body modification (piercing, branding, tatooing, etc.) is the choice of the individual because they are altering/disfiguring a part of their own body. Abortion, then, might be perceived as a mother choosing to do with her body what she will. When someone else is harmed by another’s actions, though (as in infantacide or child molestation), that’s where the law comes into play — as protection for the victim.
Now, in saying all of this, I must reiterate that I think abortion is wrong. But, to a sinful world, it is not the same as killing or violating another human being.
What I don’t want to do, though, is make assumptions to the extent that abortion is in the same league as infantacide or child molestation. While I do think that abortion is inherently wrong (i.e., immoral or whatever), the law was set up to protect us from other people (e.g., an infant from a murderer or a child from a molester). An unborn child (whether a living human being or not) is still, in all intents and purposes, something that is part of the mother.
Example:
People say that body modification (piercing, branding, tatooing, etc.) is the choice of the individual because they are altering/disfiguring a part of their own body. Abortion, then, might be perceived as a mother choosing to do with her body what she will. When someone else is harmed by another’s actions, though (as in infantacide or child molestation), that’s where the law comes into play — as protection for the victim.
Now, in saying all of this, I must reiterate that I think abortion is wrong. But, to a sinful world, it is not the same as killing or violating another human being.
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on October 11, 2004 at 05:14 am
Good thoughts, Zach!
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on October 11, 2004 at 05:19 am
Jesus did say to the adultress, “Go and sin no more” and but in todays society that is considered insulting rather than convicting. I got to go golfing with the director of The Light House. This is a group that helps woman make the right choice. He also believes in laws so that the unborn are protected. He in a sense is doing what Jesus did help the adultress and then, by supporting laws protecting the unborn, saying “go and sin no more.” Good thoughts John Adams.
» Comment by Doug Hensley () , on October 11, 2004 at 3:25 pm
I think it’s interesting that we see abortion as the litmus test for being “pro life.” Gun control, nuclear proliferation, access to sufficient medical care, fair wages, capital punishment, and domestic violence are all issues that, when dealt with one way, threaten “life.” It’s interesting that so many who oppose abortion stand on what I see as the “anti-life” side of some of these other issues.
Call me when a politician actually articulates a fully-orbed “pro-life” viewpoint.
Call me when a politician actually articulates a fully-orbed “pro-life” viewpoint.
» Comment by No Names , on October 11, 2004 at 4:56 pm
Zach, i dont think it’s an “either/or” thing. we can facilitate change on multiple levels; the legal level as well as the more important spriritual level of change you referred to. Obviously Jesus did not petition his government or lobby or whatever. How could he even if He wanted to? The Roman Empire wasn’t the kind of democracy we live in today. There was no outlet for Jesus…or any Jew, for that matter, to affect Roman law at all. Would He have if that was available? I dunno. But here and now we have the right to speak up and fight, on the legal level, for what we believe. And I don’t think that’s a wrong thing. It just shouldn’t be the only thing.
About abortion: Abortion, which is both killing and violating another human being, is most definitely in the realm of infanticide and child molestation. No question. An unborn child’s life is not merely a part of the mother in the same way her ear or nose is. It is a real life distinct from the mother, created by God for a life and purpose. Unborn children are as worthy of victim-protection as anyone else. If the world would stop calling unborn children “fetuses” and call them what they ARE (humans), the world would have to agree.
About abortion: Abortion, which is both killing and violating another human being, is most definitely in the realm of infanticide and child molestation. No question. An unborn child’s life is not merely a part of the mother in the same way her ear or nose is. It is a real life distinct from the mother, created by God for a life and purpose. Unborn children are as worthy of victim-protection as anyone else. If the world would stop calling unborn children “fetuses” and call them what they ARE (humans), the world would have to agree.
» Comment by jared () , on October 11, 2004 at 9:52 pm
doug, Jesus came to the defense of this woman. he didn’t condone what she was doing, but he put the issue into perspective and stopped her from being ridiculed and possibly from being killed. in doing so, he even puts himself in a situation that could cause himself physical harm. because of this, he can say “go and sin no more” because she’s actually thankful for what he has done. To her, Jesus is a voice of real authority. if Jesus just walked up to her and said “sin no more”, but then let the moral majority stone her to death, i don’t think she would have felt that was very helpful, especially since she would probably be on the ground bleeding to death. i am not suggesting we abandon our law making process all-together, because it is the system in place that we can utilize for what’s good and right. but i am just suggesting that maybe we are struggling with a little bit of tunnel vision in the evangelical christian community when it comes to the marriage of morality and legislation.
jared, i do agree with you that abortion is wrong and it should not be practiced. that’s not my point. my point is that if roe vs wade was overturned today, the moral majority would scream “hooray!!! we won!!!!! we would have accomplished our task and would unplug our efforts from the abortion issue. sadly, abortion would still continue and the problem would continue. if we are real with ourselves, it wouldn’t be that much of a victory after-all.
jared, i do agree with you that abortion is wrong and it should not be practiced. that’s not my point. my point is that if roe vs wade was overturned today, the moral majority would scream “hooray!!! we won!!!!! we would have accomplished our task and would unplug our efforts from the abortion issue. sadly, abortion would still continue and the problem would continue. if we are real with ourselves, it wouldn’t be that much of a victory after-all.
» Comment by Zach , on October 11, 2004 at 11:10 pm
That is why I mentioned the director of the light house. H
» Comment by Doug Hensley () , on October 11, 2004 at 11:40 pm
The director helps the mothers then states “go and sin no more” by supporting legislation that protects the unborn. You are right it is a combination of comfort for the oppressed and legislation but that doesn’t change the fact the God wants all to live for Him as much as we can. Hence, “Go and sin no more.” At least the the government can take “the high ground” and have laws that can be as moral as it can be (since they are run by humans) and support organizations that help unwed mothers as well, with God’s help.
» Comment by Doug Hensley , on October 11, 2004 at 11:56 pm
doug, i checked out the light house website and it seems lik it is a great organization and i applaud their approach. thanks for making their existence known to me. i think we can definitely use more groups like them to champion a way of living that Christ call us to live. thanks doug.
» Comment by Zach Lind () , on October 12, 2004 at 12:35 am
howdy zach. i wasnt questioning your stance on abortion. that second paragraph of mine was a response to tim’s comment. but on the legislation issue, the fact that abortions would continue hardly constitutes a reason to not pass laws against it. like i said, that shouldnt be the end of it, and i highly doubt that we would all say “yay! there’s a law now! we won and all is dandy! let’s move on to something else now.” that’s absolute nonsense. i think most people realize there’s a whole lot more to the issue than that. legislation is a foot in the door.
if im real with myself, as you say, i realize there are many ways to fight the injustice of abortion. legislation is one of them. it’s not the final destination by any means, but a step towards the goal. being lights of Christ in a dark world is another way, and probably the most important way. but to cast off an anti-abortion law as a regressive waste of time seems to me to be a mistake.
if im real with myself, as you say, i realize there are many ways to fight the injustice of abortion. legislation is one of them. it’s not the final destination by any means, but a step towards the goal. being lights of Christ in a dark world is another way, and probably the most important way. but to cast off an anti-abortion law as a regressive waste of time seems to me to be a mistake.
» Comment by jared () , on October 12, 2004 at 04:58 am
hey jared, i’m sorry if it came off that i was lumping you in with the “moral majority”. that’s not what i intended. i was just merely pointing out the tendencies of a general group of people. it would be interesting to see how high the issue of abortion was on the church’s priority list when it was illegal, before roe v. wade. i think we see eye to eye on this jared, i am just doing a bad job of being the “devil’s advocate.”
» Comment by Zach Lind () , on October 12, 2004 at 05:47 am
haha ok. sorry if i get a little worked up, zach. sometimes it’s hard to tell where people are coming from when 1) i dont know them and 2) i cant see them. you make a good point and i cant argue that it would indeed be interesting to find out people’s true loyalties if we got what we wanted legally.
» Comment by jared () , on October 12, 2004 at 2:08 pm
It’s kind of interesting to me how many of these comments centered on the issue of abortion — and how many of them were written by men. It is also always interesting to me how many people want to focus on abortion as the key “life” issue — what about poverty, physical and emotional abuse, lack of education and health care, the death penalty, racism, sexism, and on and on and on?...Doing away with a woman’s right to make her own decisions about whether or not to bring a child into the world will NOT stop some women from choosing to end a pregnancy — what we have to get to is the root of WHY women make that choice. Taking away family planning services and teaching abstinence only is not a great start…
It constantly disappoints me how many christians make abortion their litmus test for a candidate when there is a constellation of issues on which Christ spoke directly in his gospels that are ignored by many who loudly express their “pro-life” sentiment…
It constantly disappoints me how many christians make abortion their litmus test for a candidate when there is a constellation of issues on which Christ spoke directly in his gospels that are ignored by many who loudly express their “pro-life” sentiment…
» Comment by ashley () , on October 13, 2004 at 3:46 pm
Awesome thoughts, Ashley… Thank you so much for chiming in!
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on October 13, 2004 at 4:19 pm
I do think abortion is a major issue in this election for me, but, not the only one. The reason it is important is because I see an unborn child as the perfect example of the ‘least of these’ that Jesus talked about. Everything is taken from them. I find it the ultimate degredation of God’s creation. This is a conviction that will be a factor in how I vote.
On the other hand, I am disappointed is the Bush presidency. While inheriting an economic recession and having 9-11 happen soon after his election I never say the ‘compassionate conservatism’ that was talked about during the last campaign and am concerned about the massive deficit that we are growing. I’d like to have seen more care for the unemployed, sick, and struggling. I’d also like to see more bridgebuilding with the other nations of the world. I did like that he pledged $15B for fighting AIDS in Africa. I think it comes down to do I believe John Kerry would be a better alternative. I’m not sure if I’m quite convinced yet, but will be watching the debate again tonight.
On the other hand, I am disappointed is the Bush presidency. While inheriting an economic recession and having 9-11 happen soon after his election I never say the ‘compassionate conservatism’ that was talked about during the last campaign and am concerned about the massive deficit that we are growing. I’d like to have seen more care for the unemployed, sick, and struggling. I’d also like to see more bridgebuilding with the other nations of the world. I did like that he pledged $15B for fighting AIDS in Africa. I think it comes down to do I believe John Kerry would be a better alternative. I’m not sure if I’m quite convinced yet, but will be watching the debate again tonight.
» Comment by Paul () , on October 13, 2004 at 6:12 pm
I agree with you Paul. Both candidates support all of the issues Ashley mentioned, other than the death penalty, it is just a matter of how much support each will give. If you look at just total dollars, more is being spent now on all of those issues and on each and every issue now than before Bush took office. I guess the debate is over the rate of increase.
» Comment by Doug Hensley , on October 13, 2004 at 9:42 pm
Here are some thoughts on each of Tim’s topics…
War: I think there’s a big difference between saying that Bush made a mistake in going into Iraq and that Bush based a decision based on faulty intelligence.
Kerry seems to take a simplistic approach to the war: we should have had more support from the U.N., we shouldn’t have gone, etc. Knowing what we know now about the enormous bribes that were going to the U.N. (and France) from Hussein, we would have been waiting for a long time to get the support of the international community. And basing a decision on the support of others begs the question of whether popularity makes a decision right.
Are the people in Iraq better off now than they were? I have to say yes, but that’s from an American point of view. Is relative peace at the cost of poverty and fear of torture for speaking your mind better than living in a battle zone with the hope of freedom?
To leave Iraq now would be disastrous to that country, the middle east, and possibly the world. I have no doubt that if we are to exit prematurely the country will become the next Afghanistan—harboring terrorists and the like.
I must also admit though that there are people that are living in worse or similar environments in countries with more advanced weapont that the U.S. seems not to be concerned with. Would we be concerned if they had oil?
Abortion and Killing/Murder: I think that Ashley had some good thoughts on the whole abortion issue. I tend to be much closer to her line of thinking than to most “evangelical Christians.” Regardless of where you stand on the issue, you have to admit that a change in the law would not eliminate abortions any more than the law that makes murder illegal prevents murder.
However, I think we do have to consider what a law does to the conscience of the nation. If murder was not illegal but rather something you could do by taking someone down to a clinic in a suburban neighborhood would the murder rate increase? Of course. I might round up some people myself for a trip to the clinic…
Since we don’t allow people to murder each other willy-nilly, people have to think about their actions. They have to work through their differences. If abortion were illegal, it would still be possible to have an abortion, but it would make a difference and people would have to consider their decision more carefully.
By the way, by definition, abortion cannot be considered murder because it’s legal.
And one more thought on this issue: Are the laws that prohibit murder legislating morality? Absolutely. We legislate morality all the time.
Nationalism and Moralism: Is it the job of the United States to regulate moralism worldwide? Of course it’s not our job, but I think we have to consider what our responsibilities are. As the most powerful, richest nation on earth at the present time, I believe that we have a right to give voice to those that otherwise would not be heard and to defend the defenseless.
Saying that it’s not our job to get involved in other nation’s policies would have let the extermination of the Jews in Nazi Germany continue unopposed.
Integrity: I think it’s important to remember that there are a number of issues that George Bush has changed his mind or reversed his opinion on. Initially he wanted to attack Iraq without consulting the U.N. at all, but he went to the U.N. and got a resolution. He didn’t want to have a commission on the 9/11 attacks, but he changed his mind when he realized that it was important for the healing of the nation and the families of those who were killed. These are just a couple that come to mind, but I’m sure there are many others.
There are times when you have to stand your ground and there are times when it’s OK to change positions. I think the issue here is leadership style, and Bush is someone who apparently picks his battles. In this case, I believe that he is sticking to his guns (so to speak) because he realizes that if the terrorists see us waffling one bit under pressure of the talking heads here at home, they know that they will have no problem crushing our spirits by continuing their murder of civilians.
Honesty: I have to say that I don’t see this as a major issue, and here’s why… In my mind the whole political election process is unfortunate. Each side takes things and spins them into exactly what they want them to be. Is one side less honest than the other? I don’t know. All we can do is research the issues for ourselves and listen carefully when any candidate speaks.
And when it comes to running the country, we can’t equate honesty with transparency. Obviously there are things that the President knows that he can’t tell us. But that doesn’t mean he’s not being honest.
Anyway, just a few thoughts. Let the good times roll…
War: I think there’s a big difference between saying that Bush made a mistake in going into Iraq and that Bush based a decision based on faulty intelligence.
Kerry seems to take a simplistic approach to the war: we should have had more support from the U.N., we shouldn’t have gone, etc. Knowing what we know now about the enormous bribes that were going to the U.N. (and France) from Hussein, we would have been waiting for a long time to get the support of the international community. And basing a decision on the support of others begs the question of whether popularity makes a decision right.
Are the people in Iraq better off now than they were? I have to say yes, but that’s from an American point of view. Is relative peace at the cost of poverty and fear of torture for speaking your mind better than living in a battle zone with the hope of freedom?
To leave Iraq now would be disastrous to that country, the middle east, and possibly the world. I have no doubt that if we are to exit prematurely the country will become the next Afghanistan—harboring terrorists and the like.
I must also admit though that there are people that are living in worse or similar environments in countries with more advanced weapont that the U.S. seems not to be concerned with. Would we be concerned if they had oil?
Abortion and Killing/Murder: I think that Ashley had some good thoughts on the whole abortion issue. I tend to be much closer to her line of thinking than to most “evangelical Christians.” Regardless of where you stand on the issue, you have to admit that a change in the law would not eliminate abortions any more than the law that makes murder illegal prevents murder.
However, I think we do have to consider what a law does to the conscience of the nation. If murder was not illegal but rather something you could do by taking someone down to a clinic in a suburban neighborhood would the murder rate increase? Of course. I might round up some people myself for a trip to the clinic…
Since we don’t allow people to murder each other willy-nilly, people have to think about their actions. They have to work through their differences. If abortion were illegal, it would still be possible to have an abortion, but it would make a difference and people would have to consider their decision more carefully.
By the way, by definition, abortion cannot be considered murder because it’s legal.
And one more thought on this issue: Are the laws that prohibit murder legislating morality? Absolutely. We legislate morality all the time.
Nationalism and Moralism: Is it the job of the United States to regulate moralism worldwide? Of course it’s not our job, but I think we have to consider what our responsibilities are. As the most powerful, richest nation on earth at the present time, I believe that we have a right to give voice to those that otherwise would not be heard and to defend the defenseless.
Saying that it’s not our job to get involved in other nation’s policies would have let the extermination of the Jews in Nazi Germany continue unopposed.
Integrity: I think it’s important to remember that there are a number of issues that George Bush has changed his mind or reversed his opinion on. Initially he wanted to attack Iraq without consulting the U.N. at all, but he went to the U.N. and got a resolution. He didn’t want to have a commission on the 9/11 attacks, but he changed his mind when he realized that it was important for the healing of the nation and the families of those who were killed. These are just a couple that come to mind, but I’m sure there are many others.
There are times when you have to stand your ground and there are times when it’s OK to change positions. I think the issue here is leadership style, and Bush is someone who apparently picks his battles. In this case, I believe that he is sticking to his guns (so to speak) because he realizes that if the terrorists see us waffling one bit under pressure of the talking heads here at home, they know that they will have no problem crushing our spirits by continuing their murder of civilians.
Honesty: I have to say that I don’t see this as a major issue, and here’s why… In my mind the whole political election process is unfortunate. Each side takes things and spins them into exactly what they want them to be. Is one side less honest than the other? I don’t know. All we can do is research the issues for ourselves and listen carefully when any candidate speaks.
And when it comes to running the country, we can’t equate honesty with transparency. Obviously there are things that the President knows that he can’t tell us. But that doesn’t mean he’s not being honest.
Anyway, just a few thoughts. Let the good times roll…
» Comment by Todd Messenger () , on October 14, 2004 at 9:06 pm
Ah, but the key difference in the analogy of creating a clinic downtown (or in the suburbs) where I could take people to murder them is that those people generally would not be tiny beings completely dependent upon another person’s body for their existence…It is disturbing as a woman to hear people talk about fetuses as the ultimate beings in need of protection while dismissing the needs of the woman who must carry the fetus within her. One might even ask in a “culture of life” that elevates the importance of the fetus in this way, “Who is really the least of these?” Apparently it is the woman — everyone wants to tell her what she can/should do. She is the one who will have to share her body for nine months and ultimately deliver a child — which is not without impact and/or risk. If the fetus is protected over the woman — witness some legislation being proposed to limit abortions that doesn’t make exception for the health of the woman — then we are indeed saying something very significant about the value of women in our culture. They are valuable for their reproductive capability…
» Comment by ashley () , on October 15, 2004 at 06:00 am
That is why I mentioned the Light House a wonderful organization that helps the woman in a loving way. You might want to check out their website. There are other choices besides the one “choice”.
» Comment by Doug , on October 15, 2004 at 3:25 pm
Ashley—
This is difficult subject because we both feel that the others belief in some way infringes on a third-party. I wish it was as easy as “you have your beliefs and I have mine”, but I just can’t bring myself to see it that way. If I believe that it is a child then I would hope that you would want me to fight for the protection and life of children. I don’t think this is uncaring towards women and I believe I value women greatly, certainly much more than for their reproductive capability. Sin causes these circumstances where no answer is clear. With our beliefs we are both compelled to fight, that doesn’t necessarily make either of us wrong. With your beliefs I would hope that you would fight and I would hope you would understand my necessity to fight as well. Here are some things that we should agree on: Men take far to little responsibility in many circumstance for the well-being and raising of their children. God is grieved by that. Women are not supported as well as they should be by us as Christians. God is grieved by that, as well. Christians should take the lead in caring for unwanted children (this is a personal thought I have been having lately). Lastly, I want you to know that you are respected. You’re passionate and you care a lot more than most people I know. If we have proper thoughts and actions towards our beliefs then we will both be on the right side and have unity together.
This is difficult subject because we both feel that the others belief in some way infringes on a third-party. I wish it was as easy as “you have your beliefs and I have mine”, but I just can’t bring myself to see it that way. If I believe that it is a child then I would hope that you would want me to fight for the protection and life of children. I don’t think this is uncaring towards women and I believe I value women greatly, certainly much more than for their reproductive capability. Sin causes these circumstances where no answer is clear. With our beliefs we are both compelled to fight, that doesn’t necessarily make either of us wrong. With your beliefs I would hope that you would fight and I would hope you would understand my necessity to fight as well. Here are some things that we should agree on: Men take far to little responsibility in many circumstance for the well-being and raising of their children. God is grieved by that. Women are not supported as well as they should be by us as Christians. God is grieved by that, as well. Christians should take the lead in caring for unwanted children (this is a personal thought I have been having lately). Lastly, I want you to know that you are respected. You’re passionate and you care a lot more than most people I know. If we have proper thoughts and actions towards our beliefs then we will both be on the right side and have unity together.
» Comment by Paul () , on October 15, 2004 at 10:28 pm
i think in many cases it’s not the best thing for the gorvernment to legislate morality, but i’m more than happy to let the government outlaw abortion.
And yes, W. does look like A. Newman. No question. ok cool. Thanks!