My friend Jesse Pirschel, pastor of Providence OPC in Temecula, CA, vented some frustration about the “logic” of recent political discourse:
I just wonder if the recent trend in the “young” church going DNC on issues (and I am not a republican, but far from a democrat) is really that well thought out. For instance, are we really saying it’s not the governments job to prevent murder but on the other hand it is their job to protect the environment, give to the poor, supply health care, save for my retirement and educate my kids?
Now help me with the logic. We can’t legislate morality on one issue, but must shove it down the throat on every other issue? Why is it the government’s moral duty to give me insurance and send my kids to school but not protect them if I want to kill them prior to them leaving the womb?
Or how is it we can give up that issue because the church should stop murder, but still expect programs to be extended by the government to feed the poor? Please tell me how things got so backwards in our thinking to come to this?
Very well said Jesse.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Legislating Morality?
James Grant:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I just found out that McCain is for outlawing abortions UNLESS it would be for rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. Hmmmmm....so murder is okay if you've been raped? Interesting.
You could've just typed:
"Guys, I just really really really want to vote for Obama because he makes me feel good and talks about Hope."
It would save some time.
oh sife, you are so wise. you know me so well. thank you for clarifying my heart for me.
Sife,
I very much disagree with Amy on voting for Obama, but she is right-- you don't know her heart, and my brother in Christ, it's simply not humble or loving on your part to continue to write as if you do. I'm not talking about compromising your convictions here-- I'm talking about showing Christian humility and love.
We can still sharply disagree with our Christian brothers and sisters and not quickly, easily presume to know what is in their hearts. Don't we want to be *winsome* as Christians? The truth is already offensive-- must we add to the offense with our presumptuous words and actions "on behalf of" the truth?
Amy,
Sadly, I think that many (if not most) pro-life politicians take the same stance as McCain on those "exceptions." I don't agree with him there-- deliberate murder of unborn babies is still deliberate murder of unborn babies, even if the surrounding circumstances involve the horrors of rape, incest, or the possible loss of the mother's life.
Having said that, I would rather have McCain as President, as he is against abortion in the huge majority of cases, than have Obama as President, as he is in favor of the "right to choose (murder)" in almost *any* case-- even after a baby has survived an attempted abortion by a doctor!
"oh sife, you are so wise. you know me so well. thank you for clarifying my heart for me."
- You're welcome. You know it's true. Fighting it will get us nowhere.
Sife,
Why do you think that you know Amy so well? Humility, brother, humility...
Everyone needs to know that Sife, aka, "Thunder Dan" used to run people over all day long as a power running back during his Iowa high school football days. I think he misses those days and wants to take it out on Amy.
:)
Must be true.
"Why do you think that you know Amy so well?"
- Because she has not delineated any discernible reason for voting for Barack Obama other than "Hope" and "helping poor people". Thus, in the absence of any rationale, we must assume that her emotional investment in Obama's flowery rhetoric mirrors his other 'Christian' supporters.
Sife,
Please read Amy's comments carefully and charitably, brother. In giving her reasons for potentially for Obama, in addition to those which you referred to, Amy has also mentioned what she believes to be an unjust war. War is not a small issue. Now, I don't believe *at all* that the Iraq war is the moral equivalent of legalized abortion, but war is not a small issue, particularly if one believes a certain war to be unjust.
Again, I don't agree with Amy here, but regardless of whether I or you agree with her reasons for voting for Obama or not, at least we could talk about *all* of those reasons, and do so in a way that speaks of Christian love. If we don't, then we are not relating to our sister in Christ with charity and respect, as Christ would.
thanks for sticking up for me,Zach and Christopher, but some people (sife) are just thugs who like to throw rocks without thinking and aren't worth reason or negotiation.
"thanks for sticking up for me,Zach and Christopher, but some people (sife) are just thugs who like to throw rocks without thinking and aren't worth reason or negotiation."
- You're right, I don't let emotion or flowery talk of "Hope and Change" influence my vote, so I simply must not be using reason.
You're the one that has to sleep at night with your vote for the supporter of infanticide.
Happy dreams.
"Again, I don't agree with Amy here, but regardless of whether I or you agree with her reasons for voting for Obama or not, at least we could talk about *all* of those reasons, and do so in a way that speaks of Christian love. If we don't, then we are not relating to our sister in Christ with charity and respect, as Christ would."
- I'll tell you exactly why we don't do that, or shouldn't do that. Because it gives them cover. When we don't call a spade a spade, and we don't call people out on their decisions to vote for open supporters of infanticide, it justifies that decision. It tells those people "hey, it's okay, you just have a different opinion."
The consequences of this election are very real, and to approach a vote for Obama as "just another valid opinion" is another way of simply saying "there is no truth."
There IS truth. There IS right and wrong. And approaching a vote for Obama with the attitude of "hey, I may not agree with it, but I don't want to make you angry" only lends support to that theory.
People who profess to be Chrisitans and supporters of Obama need to be confronted directly with the reality of their decision. To do otherwise is to legitimize that decision, and it provides them with moral cover for doing just that.
When President Obama is given his first choice of a Supreme Court justice, and he picks another pro-choice justice, thereby setting the pro-life movement back decades and condemning another several million babies to death, are you going to approach people like Amy with "hey, I may not agree with it, but I'm really not going to make you angry"?
People who got caught up in Obama's flowery rhetoric (and it was just that) because they vote with their emotions, and not with their heads, need to be confronted with the very REAL reality of what an Obama presidency means.
If you don't like McCain, fine, but understand that a vote for Obama is a vote for infanticide. It's that simple.
Sife,
I have not compromised on the horrible truth about abortion and infanticide anywhere in these recent threads. I have written clearly about the fact that they are both *murder.* I have not framed *that* particular discussion in terms of mere "disagreement."
Where I *have* talked about disagreement is in the *importance* of abortion and infanticide (murder) when considering how to cast one's vote. I think that it is a matter of *supreme* (above all other issues) importance. Amy disagrees. I have stated my disagreement with her openly and clearly, and in so doing, I have also continued to state the FACT that abortion and infanticide are MURDER. However, the tone of a conversation matters. Can you honestly say that you have been respectful to her, as your sister in Christ?
Post a Comment