Posted by Damozel | I was going to comment on the Rick Warren forum, but then I didn't bother with it. Then I decided I ought to. Left-tilting Christians and christians---and there are plenty of us out there--- need to weigh in.
Though I'm a religious person in my private life (and sometimes here on the blog), I find it very weird that this sort of debate is taken seriously anywhere and very worrying that Obama agreed to participate. Obama oughtn't be trying to win the evangelical base or those who sail in it and if that wasn't what he was trying to do, then he shouldn't have participated. People who actually believe he's a Muslim (who are, incredibly, often the same ones who criticize his choice of Christian church) aren't likely to be persuaded by this gesture.
At any rate, I have only two questions for either candidate.
- Does the candidate oppose the right of a state to prevent a woman from deciding to terminate a pregnancy during the period when the fetus is still non-viable?
- Does the candidate support embryonic stem cell research?
For me, the answer to both those questions ought to be "yes." People who think God opposes either of those things are free not to do them. But arguments about God's wishes and the feelings of fetuses are fundamentally irrational and always end up in a shouting match.
If you were to ask me what God wants, I'd suggest that more attention to the dire situation of the homeless, unfed, uneducated, unloved, unwanted, and imperilled ought to be the priority. That is already too challenging for most of us. So many of those in need of help are exceedingly unattractive.
I often think that those who are loudest in championing the rights of the unborn are those suffering from a serious failure of compassion for those suffering humans in their immediate vicinity who are most need of that sort of energy and who would benefit most from it. It's as if, finding that actual people are really not that lovable, deserving, grateful, etc., etc, they turn to advocating for potential people, who are inoffensive in the way only the non-actual can be.
It's the easiest thing in the world to wring your hands about cruelty to fetuses, write letters, and yell insults at the less-godly-than-thou. What's hard is patiently assisting the lazy, feckless, ignorant, unemployed, uneducated, mad, lost, battered, alcoholic, etc. etc. who are right in front of you. In most cases, they aren't grateful and it doesn't do any good anyway.
But---if you're a Christian---you not only have to try; you have to keep trying. It wasn't Jesus who said "The Lord helps those who help themselves," but Ben Franklin (and he wasn't offering it as an excuse not to try to help the helpless in any case). As for Jesus, he was all about being hands on within the community. He was all about the fundamental importance of the direct human touch.
Finally, he often spoke about not judging the worth of others in God's eyes and often inveighed furiously against hypocrisy and the outward display of righteousness. So pardon me if I don't take the self-serving praise of the right-eous for their own moral superiority too seriously.
On abortion, it isn't even a matter for me of "a woman's right to choose." It's a matter of "the right not to be born" into a world where no one's provided for you. And don't talk to me about adoption. Most children in the direst straits aren't put up for adoption and if they were, there'd be no one to adopt them with all the rules now in place.
But if you asked me if a woman has a "right" to choose, then I'll just say this: as between the person whose womb it is, and the state (including whatever number of citizens think their beliefs trump her rights), I choose the woman. If the state and its citizens don't want to be responsible for the fetus after it's become an actual child, then it's hypocritical for them to claim a say in her decision whether to continue her pregnancy.
On embryonic stem cell research, it's a matter of "you have got to be effing kidding me." Balancing the rights of a clump of fertilized cells against, say, the suffering of an Alzheimer's patient and the people who have to love/look after that person seems to me to be a non-brainer. Between the born and the potentially born, I'm always going to side with the one who is actually here.
I am a christian, but my vision of God and Christ is very different from McCain's and the people he hangs out with. So if "McCain hit it out of the park" from the standpoint of people who disagree with me, that's just one more reason for me not to vote for him. As for Obama, he was right not to answer the question about when a fetus becomes human, which is what this was really about, because it's a question on which even reasonable Christians differ. I'm a bit pissed off with Obama for even going there, if you want to know the truth.
Once again, he reaches out to people who aren't part of his own base while---according to this---dissing some of the most respected. If he loses, it will be because he let go of the idea of inspiring and uniting his own base, not because he couldn't pull in all the swing voters there are. (I hope the Convention proves me wrong.)
As for Rick Warren & Co., what I'd really like is for those people to keep their church out of my state. I don't force them to go to my church, and I don't want to be forced to go to theirs.
Talking of hitting it out of the park, see John Cole and TBogg.
Here's the Christian PAC ad, by the way. It's one they did, not an "I approved this message" one. Diabetic atheists or agnostics, you have been warned.
Memeorandum here.
RECENT POSTINGS
CNN Inquires: "[IS] OBAMA THE ANTICHRIST?"
RELATED POSTS
McCain's Spiritual Adviser Advises: "Destroy Islam"
Pastor Hagee Explains Why God Inflicted Katrina on the Poor of New Orleans
The beginning comment pretty much sums up your religious belief "Though I'm a religious person in my private life..." tells me that you just dabble or play with religion. If it has no effect on your life, like decision making and moral judgment, outside your private life, why do it?
To help clarify your two questions:
* Are they Pro-Choice
* Does the candidate support embryonic stem cell research?
"For me, the answer to both those questions ought to be "yes." People who think God opposes either of those things are free not to do them. But arguments about God's wishes and the feelings of fetuses are fundamentally irrational and always end up in a shouting match."
Let us not shout, but do be rational! Some of God's thoughts are written down, just go and read them. As far as Viability goes, I doubt that many of us could live totally on our own without any help. (Going to the grocery store is cheating.) So what does viability have to do with this subject? The question that should be asked is "Is it a baby?" If not what, and when. McCain said Humanity starts at conception. Obama did not know. That kind of an answer is a cop out. Err on the side of caution?
As for embryonic stem cell research: Where do the cells come from? Refer to question one. Besides, embryonic cells have produced nothing helpful while adult cells have produced 100's of useful treatments. So why get hung up on that?
Sorry, didn't finish the article. The first few paragraph were enough for me.
Posted by: ben | August 20, 2008 at 01:22 AM
Jesus said quite a lot about not judging the righteousness of others---or displaying your own. In fact, he said far more about that than he did about abortion (which he didn't mention) or sex generally (ditto).
I've read the gospels closely. I don't dabble. But he also said: Why do you fixate on the speck in your brother's eye when you've got a great big plank-sized splinter in your own? So I don't tell other people what they should think.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Damozel | August 20, 2008 at 01:57 AM
CORRECTION: I didn't mean that Christ didn't talk at all about sex. he discussed divorce and fornication. Most people today are sinners by his standards.
Posted by: Damozel | August 20, 2008 at 04:26 AM
Damozel:
I would like to respond to your comments. Like yourself, I am somewhat given to letting the issue go, but, I find myself compelled to write a thought or two. As a preface, may I share with you that I read through the Bible twice a year, and have done so for several years now, that to say I understand that one may read it over and over again and for whatever reason, miss some vital points. I don't doubt that you read it and try to do so discerningly. I try to do the same and it is from that that these comment are put forth.
You begin "..I'm a religious person in my private life..." Not knowing your private life, I take you at your word that you don't dabble or play at religion. However, in doing so, I am left to conclude that you might have missed the import of the words of Jesus, "...of the abundance of the heart a man will speak." (Lk.6:45) The context being that regardless of how you come to your belief system, you will live it out, be you Christian, Muslim, or the State. You see dear, you cannot get away from His words. If you are a Christian, i.e. a follower of Jesus, you will live it out and declare His ways to those around you. Again Jesus' words, "No man when he has lighted a candle puts it in a secret place..." Lk. 11:33.
Your two questions about the candidate and the issues, i.e. abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
First, you comment about God's feelings toward "fetuses" as being irrational, etc. Perhaps you might consider the words of Jesus again in that vane. Jesus said "...suffer the little children to come to me..." Mt. 19:14 the word could be translated to mean recently born child or mature child, the point being, He loves the little children, (see Mt. 18:5,6). But does God consider little ones in the womb persons? When the angel Gabriel comes to Mary, he refers to miraculously conceived Jesus as a "...child...", not a non-entity "fetus". You speak of paying more attention to the "...homeless, unfed..." etc. First off, what organization has paid more attention to these than the Christian Church? Independent missions, like the Pacific Garden Mission in Chicage, the Mission in Los Angeles, Boise Rescue Mission, et.al. have been paying attention to this strata of society tirelessly for decades and even centuries. Up till recently, the government regarded them as pariah, now they are political tools, but the missions and other christian organizations still take them in, regardless of their belief systems. That being so, are we to disregard the plight of the unborn? Again, Jesus' words declare that doing one thing to the exclusion of another is hypocrisy, Matt. 23:23. Jesus came to do the whole law, and what was part of that law? Prov. 23:11-13 speak of delivering them that are being led away to death. The implication is that these being led to death are helpless to defend themselves, who better described than the unborn? By Jesus' words, it is being hypocritical to give up one for the other. As for the "...woman's rights over her own body?" you know in your heart of hearts that is a myth. A woman cannot go into a pharmacy and demand any drug you want just because it may make her feel good. She cannot sell herself on the street without being subject to arrest. If she attempt to do away with herself and are unsuccessful she will be put away for her own good by the state. These things you know. To suggest that this is a valid position as a Christian woman, flies in the face of the basic teachings of Jesus. You may look for loop holes and perhaps even satisfy your own mind that they are valid, and come to believe they are valid, and avow that position a thousand times, but that will never make it true.
Lastly, you comment, not knowing the man I'll wager, that Pastor Warren comes off "...holier than thou...". May I remind you that that is exactly what the Pharisees, and Sadducees, and lawyers thought of Jesus. He laid down the law, not maliciously, not vindictively, but purposefully, with the idea of waking up the populous to a need for repentence. Pastor Warren is a Christian, a follower of Christ, what do you expect him to look like? If they thought this of Jesus, wouldn't folks think this of one of His followers? Personally I confess, by all appearance, he is "...holier than I am..." I don't have near the impact on humanity Rick Warren has and that because I am not as close a follower of Jesus as he is, to my shame. If you are a Christian, and I take you at your word, follow Him and gain that reputation, not for prides sake, but for the Kingdom of God's sake.
I hope you accept this in the spirit of kindness as it is intended. The Lord bless you in your walk with Him. B
Posted by: bandito | December 20, 2008 at 10:33 PM