Theologian Dr. John Frame:
“…in some cultures (like the ancient Roman, in which the New Testament was written) there is not much that Christians can do, other than pray, to influence political structures and policies. But when they can influence them, they should. In modern democracies, all citizens are ‘lesser magistrates’ by virtue of the ballot box. Christians have an obligation to vote according to God’s standards. And, as they are gifted and called, they should influence others to vote in the same way.
This is not to say that political choices are always obvious. Often we must choose the lesser of two evils. Candidate Mershon may have a better view of one issue than Candidate Beates, while Beates has a better view on a different issue. It is an art to weigh the importance of different issues and to come to a godly conclusion. Each of us should have a large amount of tolerance for other Christians who come to conclusions that are different from ours. Rarely will one issue trump all others, though I must say that I will never vote for a candidate who advocates or facilitates the killing of unborn children.” [The Doctrine of the Christian Life (P&R 2008). p. 617.]
Preacher/author Dr. John Piper:
“…When we bought our dog at the Humane Society, I picked up a brochure on the laws of Minnesota concerning animals. Statute 343.2, subdivision 1 says, ‘No person shall . . . unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal.’ Subdivision 7 says, ‘No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal.’ The penalty: ‘A person who fails to comply with any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.’
Now this set me to pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment, which says that ‘no state shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law.’ Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it legal to ’maim, mutilate and kill’ a pain-sensitive unborn human being but not an animal?
These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil—even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.”
Princeton prof Dr. Robert George on 10/14/08:
“Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress…”
(HT: Tony)
14 comments:
Great quotes. But what makes us think that abortion issues will change with a Mccain White House?
though I must say that I will never vote for a candidate who advocates or facilitates the killing of unborn children.
OK - this is where I get hung up: The BIG issue for me in all of this is not so much abortion or McCain vs. Obama - it's anyone that would be careless with their privilege and right to vote by looking at only one single issue and deciding on that point alone, as you yourself have admitted is your voting premise in a recent comment/reply you posted several weeks ago. And it doesn't matter to me whether that be for one side or the other. I wouldn't want someone to vote for Obama on one issue any more than I'd want someone to vote for McCain based on one issue.
First off, I think a statement like the one above and others like it are extremest in their terminology and description and only serve to excite and rile emotions. A decision made like this, especially after such a good and very balanced expose of how one should choose a candidate, especially when it's a "lesser of two evils" situation, was disappointing to see, and I feel somewhat irresponsible to lead others in a similar direction.
Let's be honest and real here and get away from rhetoric - a candidate/politician does not "advocate or facilitate" the killing of unborn children. (Obama has stated he does not morally favor abortion.) But yet, he does support the right to choose, which yes, this is a problem. BUT - PEOPLE make the CHOICE to kill an unborn infant. Not the politician. One sole person like Obama is NOT responsible for the death of millions of unborn children any more than McCain is responsible for all the innocent civilians killed in Vietnam because he participated in the war. So let's not keep pinning that on them, OK? That's just wrong and a terrible in-balance and injustice to how we judge and select the leader of our country - regardless of who and which side we're talking about. It only serves the side we're on, and only alienates everyone else by labeling them that way.
Let's look at it this way: McCain and Palin are largely not as in favor of gun control and don't believe gun control laws have had any real effect, as criminals will still just break the gun control laws anyway. But they still believe that law abiding citizens should have every right to lawfully carry a gun with as little restriction as possible - for self defense and lawful use. Palin is obviously an avid hunter and gun user and has backed all sorts of gun use initiatives in Alaska. However we all know that guns kill hordes of innocent men, women, and children each year. And I am against guns. I grew up with not even toy guns in our house. (My mother's first husband was killed in a tragic hunting accident (true.) So we never had them in our house. So hence - Palin and McCain must be responsible for all of these innocent lives lost, because they're so pro-gun use/gun rights advocates, correct? Thus I'll call them gun toting people killers. Thus, I won't vote for them because of that one issue.
Does THAT make any sense?
In any case - we need to do much more to help change the hearts and minds of those people that are looking at abortion, the circumstances they're in, and the alternatives available to them more than anything else. All our other efforts only seem to alienate them.
"It is an art to weigh the importance of different issues and to come to a godly conclusion. Each of us should have a large amount of tolerance for other Christians who come to conclusions that are different from ours."
As much as Christians hate the "T" word (tolerance) I think this would be greatly helpful for the Church that can be divided so bitterly over these issues. I respect those who have the conviction that abortion is their #1 voting issue and those that don't see this as paramount. Whether or not I agree with either belief, I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they have been truly convicted about their stance. Its not my place to judge this.
And maybe to take this a step further, how might we find some common ground to work together rather than to be divided over the issues?
I see lots of people above trying desperately to rationalize and justify their vote for Obama.
Cody,
Let's apply your logic on abortion to another issue. If American society were to continue its current slide toward sexual depravity, and child molestation were legalized, would you say that people should just "tolerate" each other's views on *that* particular atrocity, and not make it a "one-issue" matter over which to vote... and perhaps work toward making child molestation simply less frequent by concentrating on the societal factors which "cause" molestation? If not, why would you see the legality of child molestation (the harming of born children) as being any different than the legality of abortion (the killing of unborn babies)?
John C,
Majority decision by citizens of a country does not determine morality. You are using this argument with abortion, and it is invalid. The majority of German citizens cooperated with the persecution of Jews (if not always the killing itself) during the Holocaust. The majority was wrong. Even if the majority of American citizens approved of abortion, we should still work toward its eventually being made illegal.
Chris
I'm not saying that exactly. I do think it's morally wrong. I do think the majority is wrong. I do think we should keep working towards a solution. What I'm saying is that for now, "that's the way it is - that's what government has condoned." Doesn't make it right, no.
I think to compare to the holocaust is a bit different. The abortion issue is more complicated than that. The holocaust had an evil dictator/regime at it's helm, a flawed ideology, and the threats of death for those that didn't comply. Abortion at it's core is meant at the heart as a drastic measure to "help" the mother involved, however flawed that thinking may be. But there's not an evil dictator at the head of this with something to gain out of it, and no one is putting guns to people's heads forcing them to comply with contributing to abortions, doing them, etc.
well it was worth a shot.
"Tolerance" seems to be code for "please just let me vote for Obama and don't remind me about the real-life impacts of that decision. I've made up my mind, and would prefer not to be held accountable."
The day the church starts being "tolerant" of butchering 4,000 kids per day will be a sad one. Unfortunately, by looking around the country and reading blogs like this, it appears that we may have already reached that point.
John,
You assume WAY to much about the goodness of humanity.
"Abortion at it's core is meant at the heart as a drastic measure to "help" the mother involved, however flawed that thinking may be."
Bro, do you seriously believe this? I would encourage you to check the stats on why people get abortions. You want to know why? Because at it's core, people love to have sex and don't want to be held accountable for making that choice. If sex was not fun we wouldn't be even having this discussion, but we make an idol out of our "freedom" and bow down and worship it. That is why we have abortion. It's a freedom issue and I should be free to kill in the name of it in order to continue to be able to have sex unchecked.
The heart of man apart from the HS is hopelessly lost. John please know this. James 4:2 speak much to abortion "You desire and do not have, so you murder." We desire freedom, babies get in the way of freedom, so we kill in order to get it. It really is as simple as that (in most cases).
You can't vote for BO dude. Dude is straight up evil. He doesn't know it, but "he is doing right in his own eyes" and that is so far from Biblical Christianity it's not even funny.
Yeah, McCain is no Messiah in the least, but you have to see that abortion is in such a different category. 45 million babies. Let that sink in. How could we brush by that and say "there are other issues" What if it was toddlers? We wouldn't be able to bear it. Ok, explain the difference between the two to me. Please, do it!
I would love to see you respond to my questions to you on the post below.
z
Cody,
You didn't answer the very serious question that I posed to you. What if child molestation eventually becomes legal? Don't laugh or shrug it off-- it could happen, if more and more perverse behavior comes to be seen as "normal," or at least "tolerable," in America. Thirty years ago, it would have been unthinkable to teach homosexuality as a valid "orientation" that should be acted upon or as an "alternative lifestyle" in public schools. If child molestation becomes legal, would you say that we should "tolerate" varying views on the subject, and just work together to make child molestation less frequent? If you wouldn't say that, then why do you use the "T" word when it comes to the killing of babies within the womb?
give me some time and I'll respond to your questions/posts etc.
It's never been one-issue politics for me because I grew up in a staunch republican house, where the anti-abortion issue fell under the umbrella of my party (typically). But now I'm older and have broken from my parents' mold. I'm still mostly republican, but now it's based on my own knowlege. And now it has come down to one issue. Abortion.
Here are two ways I have tried to explain my heart in the matter
1. I imagine a day in eternity when I stand before my creator, and He asks me how, in His name, I supported a man that facilitated the killing of the unborn. I wouldn't have a response, I don't think.
2. If we Americans were on trial for our sins, were convicted, and had to serve our sentence for killing unborn children first, we would never outlive our sentence to begin serving the other sentences. It becomes one-issue politics at that point.
But don't get me wrong. I have plenty of other issues that I struggle with. I'm a hard working small business owner that is very concerned about tax plans (siding with republicans). I'm a philanthropist at heart, and worry about the financially, morally, and spiritually bankrupt in our world (siding with the democrats). So there are many other issues that deeply concern me, but the most important is abortion. And abortion is a deal killer, no matter what. So yes, it has become one-issue politics for me when you strip it down to the nuts and bolts.
I can't support a man that thinks it's okay to kill unborn babies.
Post a Comment