Did anyone see Rick Warren’s interviews with the Presidential candidates? The transcript is here if you are interested.
The forum was revealing on many counts:
The candidates: In the coming weeks, I think we will find that McCain did himself a lot of good with the so-called “evangelical” portion of the conservative base. Both candidates looked and sounded good, but I think McCain demonstrated a gravitas that far outweighed Obama. There was a definite contrast. Compare their answers to Pastor Rick’s question about the “most gut-wrenching decision you have ever had to make:”
OBAMA: Well, you know, I think the opposition to the war in Iraq was as tough a decision as I’ve had to make. Not only because there were political consequences, but also because Saddam Hussein was a real bad person, and there was no doubt that he meant America ill. But I was firmly convinced at the time that we did not have strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and there were a lot of questions that, as I spoke to experts, kept on coming up. Do we know how the Shia and the Sunni and the Kurds are going to get along in a post-Saddam situation? What’s our assessment as to how this will affect the battle against terrorists like al Qaeda? Have we finished the job in Afghanistan?
So I agonized over that. And I think that questions of war and peace generally are so profound. You know, when you meet the troops, they’re 19, 20, 21-year-old kids, and you’re putting them into harm’s way. There is a solemn obligation that you do everything you can to get that decision right. And now, as the war went forward, there are difficult decisions about how long do you keep on funding the war, if you strongly believe that it’s not in America’s national interest. At the same time, you don’t want to have troops who are out there without the equipment they need.
So all those questions surrounding the war have been very difficult for me.
Nevermind that Barack Obama never had to cast a vote against the Iraq war in the Illinois State Senate. Compare this McCain’s answer:
MCCAIN: It was long ago, and far away, in a prison camp in North Vietnam. My father was a high-ranking admiral. The Vietnamese came and said that I could leave prison early. And we had a code of conduct. It said you only leave by order of capture. I also had a dear and beloved friend, who was from California, named Ebb Alvarez, who had been shot down before me. But I wasn’t in good physical shape. In fact, I was in rather bad physical shape. So I said no. Now, in interest of full disclosure, I’m happy I didn’t know the war was going to last for another three years or so.
But I said no, and I’ll never forget sitting in my last answer, and the high-ranking officer offered it, slammed the door and the interrogator said, “Go back to your cell. It’s going to be very tough on you now.” And it was. But not only the toughest decision I ever made, but I am most happy about that decision, than any decision I’ve ever made in my life. (APPLAUSE).
To his credit, Pastor Rick did ask one question about that thorny subject called abortion: “Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”
OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.
But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members. And so, for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.
Here is McCain:
MCCAIN: At the moment of conception. (APPLAUSE). I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president. And this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment. That’s my commitment to you.
Compared with Obama’s hemming and hawing, that is an outstanding answer. It is interesting that Obama talks about reducing the number of abortions, yet has opposed every effort to do so. Indeed, he has promised to reverse the Bush administration’s moratorium on federally funded abortions once he takes office. How will that reduce the number of abortions?
Finally, let’s talk about Pastor Rick for little bit. Do you think this was an appropriate thing for him to do as a pastor?
How the abortion issue was handled was revealing. I guess I should be thankful it was brought up at all, but isn’t there something unsettling with the fact that it was treated as just another issue, especially by this reknowned “evangelical pastor.” Obama’s equivocation on this point could be forgiven or overlooked if one agreed with his position on every other point? Right? He even noted how many abortions there have been since Roe v. Wade (though I think he underreported it a bit).
George Will wrote a column a while back in which he noted that we can no longer call abortion, the most common medical procedure, murder. This offended a lot of pro-lifers, but I wonder if he is right.
Have we lost our sense of outrage over abortion? Even in the pro-life community, abortion seems to have become one more of many “life issues.” If we really believe abortion to be murder, why aren’t we doing more about it? Maybe, the truth is that we no longer think it is murder and that is why accept so many accommodations with it. It is just another issue, to be balanced with all the others.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not trying to suggest that abortion is not murder. Instead, I am questioning our commitment to that proposition and its consequences.
If that is so, what more can we do?
August 18, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I’m of the opinion that those who perform abortions and have them performed should be tried for 1st degree, premeditated murder…in Texas.
August 18, 2008 at 5:46 pm
FYI, I removed the first response to this post.
Lutheran Student, if you research the history of abortion laws in the U.S. and elsewhere, you will find that rarely, if ever, do they call for the prosecution of the mother. If some criminal penalty is leveled against her, it is usually a lesser one than the one leveled against the abortionist.
I think the reasoning behind this is quite sound because as our tragic history with abortion has taught us, there are two victims in an abortion, the child and the mother.
The true irony of abortion as a “feminist” cause is the harm it does to women. Abortion liberates men, not women.
Limiting the criminal penalty to the abortionist is enough.
But, the fact of the matter is that we are no where near having the sort of consensus about abortion required to pass any sort of restriction that would challenge Roe v. Wade.
Even if we could change the make up of the SCOTUS overnight and overturn Roe v. Wade, the resulting patchwork of abortion laws in the states would make abortion restrictions a joke.
We must convince our brother and sisters, even the liberal ones, that abortion kills. We must change hearts and minds.
August 18, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I’d be curious to know what Pastor “Rick” did with the earnings from his book and how expensive his house is. If he is a true Christian he would use every single penny of his earnings to provide financial support for the all of the young unwed mothers he’s urging not to have abortions. If he’s living comfortably above the poverty line himself he’s a hypocrite and a false prophet. Christians who think that God wants them to be rich need to re-read the Bible. The recent forum with McCain and Obama was nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to determine which of the two candidates is the most “Christian”. Our Constitution speaks to the issue of freedom of religion. Are evalangelical Christians saying that they will not vote for a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or Atheist- no matter how qualified? Where is the religious tolerance that America has always promised? Where is the humility that Jesus preached? Would Jesus have lived in an expensive house in an upscale suburb? Would he have accumulated wealth?
August 18, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Jay Quick –
OK, so which one of the candidates do you think came off as “more Christian?” Both men said they believed that Jesus was their Lord and Savior. So, which one was more Christian?
America is the most religiously tolerant nation in the world. A lot of that has to do with our Constitution, most of it has to do with the folks that live here.
Religious tolerance does not exclude consideration of a person’s religion, or lack thereof, in deciding whether to vote for him. I for one believe that a person’s religion is quite important when considering him for elected office. Specifically, I would want to know how that religion would inform his principles and beliefs and how the tenets of that particular religion would potentially conflict with his execution of his office.
I am after wisdom when I select a President. I would rather be ruled by a wise pagan than a Christian who is an idiot. But, we can only gauge a candidates wisdom by considering his principles, values, and beliefs. His religion is critical to that.
The Bible says quite a bit about money. You are correct to say that being a Christian is not a guarantee for a financially successful portfolio. But, you incorrectly state that in order to be a Christian you cannot have any accumulated wealth. Indeed, the Bible does promise blessings in response to one’s biblical tithe.
The Bible says that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil, not the money itself.
August 19, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Why aren’t we energetic fighting abortion? Perhaps it’s because there’s no more hope of creating a just society than there is of getting our government to balance its budget or to stay out of foolish wars. And there is considerably less hope of it than creating a society where a broken arm does not result in bankruptcy.
“The woman as victim” is comforting, politically tenable drivel, and by propogating such silliness you dull the sting of the moral law. Certainly acts of heinous treachery do violence to perpetrator as well as victim, for an illustration see Lady MacBeth. But the abortion we are talking about is a mother voluntary and deliberately paying for the murder of her unborn child. There is no moral difference between that and the mother murdering her two year old because of crippling disease, or because she thinks the child is better off dead, or on a whim. As a political reality you might not want to prosecute a mother who kills her unborn child – kind of inconsistent, isn’t it? – though you open up the field to unlimited and unprosecuted chemically induced abortions. But by calling the woman the victim of abortion, you whitewash the facts.
August 20, 2008 at 4:06 pm
WretchedMan –
I’m not after a “just society,” we will not see that this side of heaven. I would prefer that fewer babies died from abortion. Lutherans can recognize Two Kingdoms, but we still must love our neighbor here and now. That means working for and praying for good government. In a democracy such as ours, we bear an even larger burden to do so, because we are the government.
Drivel? I thought I was the spunky one around here!
First off, I was suggesting that as a basis to argue against the capital punishment penalty for mothers who have abortions suggested above.
Secondly, that was the legal tradition pre-1973. Mothers, where they were penalized, were penalized much less stringently than the doctors who procured the abortions.
If you want to cavalierly label that legal tradition “silliness” or a “whitewash” of facts, be my guest.
You are correct to say that there is no moral difference a baby aborted and a two year old killed. But, in order to determine the moral culpability and appropriate punishment of the actor of the crime, it is usual and customary to consider whether the necessary “mens rea” or “guilty mind” was present.
There is an entire industry dedicated to making mothers feel OK with killing their babies. Indeed, millions of the women seeking abortions are under-age. More often than not, they are told what they are doing is no big deal, i.e., their own “choice.” They are told this by boyfriends, girlfriends, counsellors, doctors, parents, civic leaders, and even their own churches. Should they know better? Of course, they should. But, I am willing to admit that they “know not, what they do.” Sadly, many years later, they finally realize what they have done and done to them. Too little too late.
In that sense, I do not believe it is a “whitewash” to label them a “victim” of abortion. Certainly, not to the level of the child who lost his or her life (I did not mean to suggest that!), but a victim nonetheless. Surely, many women know exactly what they are doing, and simply do not care. I am not sure if I can call these women victims, as they seem to have a “mens rea” that precludes it.
So, as a “political reality,” which is where we currently live by the way, how should we handle this? I say, let the doctor, the person who is in a position, in education and training to know better, bear the harsher penalty. That is in keeping with the legal tradition of abortion restrictions and best reflects a “just” outcome.
I do not believe that is drivel.
August 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Obviously, my statement was a bit hyperbolic. I doubt we’ll be able to ship everyone to Texas to try them for abortion crimes, for example. However, the point still remains, that the mother and the doctor are both equally culpable. Or are they?
I would make the opposite case, that it is the mother, and not the doctor, who deserves the greater punishment. The child is not charged to the doctor. The child is not a gift to the doctor. The doctor is not responsible for raising and nurturing the child. In fact, in many ways, the doctor is simply an instrument. Now, he’s certainly guilty of murder, but after all, the mother could use a variety of other methods to kill a baby. The mother has committed the greater crime, and therefore deserves the greater punishment.
August 20, 2008 at 6:02 pm
OB1, a sober response!
Regarding perpetrators being victims too, my concern is that once you launch into calling people who do things deliberately “victims” there can be no end. “I’m a victim of fetal alcohol syndrome [or a broken home, or peer pressure, or a congenital brain defect, or testosterone poisoning], I shouldn’t be punished.” Strikes me as if a person enters deliberately into an action she knows to be a crime, she’s not a victim. I have compassion for those who have done wrong in their lives, heaven knows the sins of my youth cause me great anguish when I think of them, and I don’t really care too much whether we decide to send people to jail or not. What I want is for it to be clear that the moral law is unforgiving and without excuse. With that clear we know why we must run to Christ.
Yes, we should fight to get rid of abortion. This is not the only issue about which we might be concerned.
August 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Good discussion here, if not agreement, all the way around. One thing is clear, it is all academic right now.
That’s the real problem!
August 21, 2008 at 3:38 am
Let’s see. The topic: religion, abortion, and politics. That’s a way to get a discussion going! Now if you could figure out how to work in universal health care, global warming and a 30 day sex challenge…
August 24, 2008 at 2:36 pm
We are going down…and fast.
Come Lord Jesus, come.