Why “Reducing the Number of Abortions” not Necessarily Prolife
…pro-life activists have worked tirelessly over the years to reduce the number of abortions, but a numerical reduction is not our only goal. The prolife position is that all members of the human community, including the unborn, have inestimable and equal worth and dignity and thus are entitled to the fundamental protection of the laws. “Reducing the number of abortions” could occur in a regime of law in which this principle of justice is denied, and that is the regime that President Obama wants to preserve and extend. It is a regime in which the continued existence of the unborn is always at the absolute discretion of others who happen to possess the power to decide to kill them or let them live. Reducing the number of these discretionary acts of killing simply by trying to pacify and/or accommodate the needs of those who want to procure or encourage abortions only reinforces the idea that the unborn are subhuman creatures whose value depends exclusively on someone else’s wanting them or deciding that they are worthy of being permitted to live. So, in theory at least, there could be fewer abortions while the culture drifts further away from the prolife perspective and the law becomes increasingly unjust.
Consider this illustration. Imagine if someone told you in 19th century America that he was not interested in giving slaves full citizenship, but merely reducing the number of people brought to this country to be slaves. But suppose another person told you that he too wanted to reduce the number of slaves, but proposed to do it by granting them the full citizenship to which they are entitled as a matter of natural justice. Which of the two is really “against slavery” in a full-orbed principled sense? The first wants to reduce the number of slaves, but only while retaining a regime of law that treats an entire class of human beings as subhuman property. The second believes that the juridical infrastructure should reflect the moral truth about enslaved people, namely, that they are in fact human beings made in the image of their Maker who by being held in bondage are denied their fundamental rights.
Just as calling for the reduction of the slave population is not the same as believing that slaves are full members of the moral community and are entitled to protection by the state, calling for a reduction in the number of abortions is not the same as calling for the state to reflect in its laws and policies the true inclusiveness of the human family, that it consists of all those who share the same nature regardless of size, level of development, environment or dependency.
Yep. Francis Beckwith says it exactly right.
The argument that “Obama’s policies will reduce the number of abortions because people will feel they have other alternatives” is very, very ugly under the surface. Yet, exactly that was the position of many Christians who voted for Obama. They need to reconsider, repent, and re-engage with the real pro-life movement.
I wonder if they’d have thought a good solution to slavery was to leave it legal, but give away farming machinery to plantation owners, hoping they’d release their slaves?
February 19th, 2009 5:41 pm
If abortion isn’t the killing of an innocent human being, then what possible difference could it make to anybody that the number of them is reduced? Would it not be better to have as many as possible so as to provide more jobs for the abortion industry? Don’t we need more jobs?
March 6th, 2009 5:47 pm
thanks for sharing … rhetoric like this needs exposing….
September 27th, 2009 9:06 am
[…] essentially supporting politicians and policies that are pro-abortion. (More on that general topic here.) In this interesting article, Michael New discusses this, and sums up this way: It seems […]
September 30th, 2009 9:08 pm
Dear Harmonicminer,
I was invited by my conservative friend to check out your blog and as a pro-life progressive evangelical who supported Obama I am disturbed by your harsh attack against..your more “liberal” brothers in Christ(we need to “repent” for supporting pro-choice president?).People like me disagree with Obama on abortion but we believe creating a culture of life must come before criminalizing abortion. Hearts of people must fully embrace pro-life(from conception to natural death) for pro-life laws can work effectively. Child care, abstinence, adoption, pregnency care center/counselling,are all important steps to make people change their views on the sanctity of human life. Yes I am disappointed that Obama will not go all the way with us, but your “liberal” brothers in Christ felt we can work with him to empower woman to “choose life” (not to mention many other issues like war, environemnt, health immigration, etc.) I RESPECT YOUR CHOICE…will you also respect our sincereity? Our ultiamte goal is same right?
September 30th, 2009 9:13 pm
About slavery…let’s remember that even Lincoln was trying to stop the expansion of slavery only, realizing the limit of social consensus at the time. Remember when President Bush admited, “America is not yet ready to ban abortion”? We pro-life liberals want to go about it step by step, so the tragedy of abortion will gradualyl but surely be eliminated(Did you notice that now, even the pro-choicers like Obama and Hillary are admitting abortion is “tragic” choice for many, many women. Even they, are not admitting the dark side of abortion. America is changing…slowly, but surely.).
September 30th, 2009 10:44 pm
I can certainly accept that “pro-life” Obama voters may have meant well. But it is surely a position based on ignorance of the history and facts of abortion in American life. Abortion did not multiply by a factor of ten since Roe v. Wade because of a lack of progressive social policy. It did that because it was legal and easy to get. Far more, proportional to the population, is now spent on welfare, social programs, entitlements of all kinds, than was spent in 1973. Yet abortion numbers remain very high, though they change some from year to year.
The fact is that in 1973, America was not yet ready to legalize abortion. It took the act of a left leaning, activist court to do what the majority of America did not want, or the Congress would have done it sooner. Overturning the court’s ruling now would not end abortion. But it would reduce it quite a bit, and it is an essential first step before the matter can be pursued in the states.
We did not wait to “change hearts of people” before criminalizing child abuse. Or ending slavery. Or about fifty other evil things. Why is abortion different in your mind?
There is essentially no reason to believe that ANY amount of social spending and welfare programming will reduce abortion. It’s been tried. It hasn’t worked. Abortion is legal, cheap, and, apparently, all too easy. And because it’s legal, for any reason, at any time in the pregnancy, pretty much without restraint (except in a few jurisdictions that have some limitations on very late abortion), it has the patina of respectability.
If you voted for Obama, you voted for a president who wants the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) to become law. Are you aware of the content of the law? If not, search “FOCA” on my blog (the search box in the black title bar at the top) for some links.
I would like for my child to be able to become a medical doctor without being forced to participate in abortions of convenience, refer people for abortion, etc. Yet that conscience protection will surely be gone if FOCA passes.
Obama is without question the most radically pro-abortion president we have had. If you voted for him, and you are a Christian, yes, you need to repent. None of the other programs/policies he has promised come anywhere close to balancing the incredible harm done by his election, and already realized by his success in appointing a Leftist supreme court judge who will be on the bench for decades. He’ll probably get at least one more opportunity to tilt the court. Maybe even more. And it won’t matter if FOCA passes and he signs it into law, as he has promised.
Can you name any evidence that Obama has any intent to “work with my liberal brothers in Christ to empower women to choose life”?
I hope you’ll engage directly with the points I’ve made here and in the post above, as well as other posts on the blog. It seemed to me that you essentially repeated Leftist talking points without directly engaging the central arguments in this post by Francis Beckwith.
I hope you’ll explore here and here.
October 1st, 2009 6:32 am
Jong Eun Lee – you state that “…even the pro-choicers like Obama and Hillary are admitting abortion is {a} “tragic†choice for many, many women.” I’m curious as to why they think it would EVER constitute a tragedy for anyone. I mean, who really cares about a baby that hasn’t been born yet, anyway? Why do you?
October 1st, 2009 7:28 am
Thank you both for your articulate defense of traditional pro-life arguments.
Starting with enharmonic’s question. Answer is relatively easy. I am pro-life so I oppose abortion(question of coruse is how to eliminate it). Even the pro-choicers are realizing abortion is no-longer clear black-white choice they thought it was. Remember in the 60’s when abortion was the essense of feminist empowerment? Now they are realizing abortion “can” have negative consequence for women and also realize the…”moral shadiness” of late-term abortion(when the fetus is viable). In fact, even pro-choicers become reluctant when they consider aborting viable fetuses. That’s a step in the right direction right?
October 1st, 2009 7:59 am
As for Mr. Harmonicminer’s view, first of all I am not going to repent for supporting Obama(with all due respect). problem with health policies of post-Roe was that they weren’t geared to encoruage life. There were no ultra-sound images, insufficient adoption services, extensive govt-funded psycholoigcal counselling for pregneant women. In fact, I cringe to say this, but many liberals then thought “abortion-on demand” was the answer. No wonder abortion increased! It’s time we use govt. money to fund pro-life projects. And PLEASE REMEMBER, abortion rate HAS DECREASED SINCE 90’s and still decrease at a rate of 1% per year. Pro-life activism and compassion does work.
FOCA. I don’t support it. No will it pass in Congress. As for Supreme Court pick, Sotomayer has affirmed govt’s right to ban funding of abortion too. With all due respect, even Bill Clinton said abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” Is Obama any different(meaning he is a “mainstream” pro-choicer, not radical)? I am NOT SATISFIED EITHER, but Mr. Harmonicminer this is what I believe. Obama will NOT be our pro-life champion, that was not his call. That’s our call. Yet he still can perform a service for the pro-life community through his liberal policies that values the role of govt. in improving the quality of life in our society(not just for the unborn). We tried Bush’s conservative policies to limit abortion(banning partical birth abortion for an instance), now let’s try liberal policies, every approaches should be on the table for pro-life cause.
P.S. but of course, it would be so great if Obama is wholly committed to pro-life cause! I know! I know! but he is not, so we need to work with what we have, cajole him, pressure him, entice him, talk to him, move him step by step until the next election(had Mccain been president, same thing would have happened). Please don’t abandon Obama, he needs your prayer as US’s president(and as a simple man.
October 1st, 2009 9:43 am
Jong Eun Lee,
I am not an academic so please excuse me for not using lofty terms to explain my opinion. My understanding is that Murder is forbidden by God. As a Christian I am bound by God’s ruling. As a Christian, one then can not condone murder either by words or by actions. God’s law trumps man’s law. So the taking of a human life, in violation of God’s law, is Murder.
President Obama and his left wing faction of the Democratic Party, by their actions, condone the murder of human beings. Our progressive brothers voted for Obama, knowing fully that he and his party support abortion by their actions. Therefore by your actions, you support abortion, the Murder of innocent human beings.
By condoning abortion, one violates the rights of millions of human beings a year. By condoning abortion one certainly is not above reproach. So explain to me how you condone Murder and you tell us in lofty terms that you follow Christ. I am sorry, you can’t have it both ways. You are either with Christ or not. You can not condone what Christ condems.
October 1st, 2009 12:58 pm
Jong Eun, It seems to me that all of your position is based on hope, not reality. The reality is that nothing Obama has ever done or said, either in past or planned policy, will do anything to decrease abortion. It will INCREASE it, instead.
I’m glad you’re so confident FOCA will not pass. I hope you’re right. But your President DOES support it, vigorously.
The decreases in abortion, which are relatively small from the peak, are due to NOTHING done by Left-liberals, and almost totally due to education efforts by conservatives, religious and otherwise. Even those are hampered by the fact the media will not let anti-abortion people tell the truth about abortion. I invite you to try to run an ad on TV or in a newspaper showing the result of an abortion, or even describing it graphically and in detail. Simply, you can’t, because the left-liberal media censor it. I’ve documented this fact elsewhere on the blog… search “abortion” in the black title bar at the top and you should be able to locate it. Let me know if you can’t.
I feel you still have not responded to the central argument in the post above.
And a final challenge… at what point would you as a Christian Obama voter acknowledge that you were wrong, if nothing in his presidency offers any hope for the anti-abortion cause? Two years? Three years? The end of a second term?
Because I am confident that the facts of the history to come will prove false your hope of working with him in any way on this matter… and I am curious what you will say to yourself about your choice at that time.
That is the point of those two links I referred you to in an earlier comment, the ones at http://www.moralaccountability.com.
October 1st, 2009 3:52 pm
If I recall correctly, “…um, um, um,…, Barak Hussein Obama” as the schoolchildren now chant across America; made the statement during his campaign that the last thing he would want for his own daughter (should she find herself pregnant and unmarried) would be for her to be”…saddled with a baby”. This is a man with a very hard heart.
October 1st, 2009 7:05 pm
but Mr. Harmonicminer, your analysis is also based greatly on fear and negative predictions on the pro-choice surge led by President Obama. So far, Obama has not even petitioned for FOCA and stem-cell research, I am sorry but many pro-lifers like me, McCain, Bill Frist, Sen. Hatch, do support enbryonic stem cell research(of coruse that’s a whole another debate). I clicked on the moral accountability link, and I am confused, A pro-life doctor. is now the head of Natl. Health Institute(that’s good thing right?)? True, I see that most of Obama’s appointees are pro-choice(Sebellius, Ogden, etc.) 🙁 Of course I am not pleased and feel it’s even more necessary to increase pro-life rank around Obama(so he can see the both sides of the debate). I agree that there’s a vigorous pro-choice movement pressuring Obama, which is why we need to pressure back(but you are right, we supported Obama in ’08 because we believe we can balance the pro-choice influence in his govt. Perhaps too ambitious? But I think it’s a worthy mission/task to “evangelize” our fellow progressives in the govt.). (you do want us to suceed right?)
You said, Obama’s policy will not reduce abortion. My answer is, well, let’s try. We tried Clinton’s way, Bush’s way, so let’s see what Obama has to offer. And no, I am not saying we should just sit back and do nothing. As you know we pro-life Democrats have warned him and Pelosi that we will not support universal health care that funds abortion. I support Obama, but I am not afriad to criticize him if he panders too much to the pro-choicers.
Your question, when would I admit I was wrong about Obama?(wow I need to take a deep breath)…. if Obama cuts off dialogue with the pro-life community and openly declare abortion is a good thing for America to be encouraged(MAY THIS NEVER HAPPEN!), then there will be no more common ground right? At the point, pro-life of all ideology must unify in rank to make him see the political unfeasability of such….position..and if he is unbending, he will face the elctoral consequence(meaning we will vote him out). I have believed Obama to be reasonable and willing to accomodate some pro-life views, but if he can’t compromise, we will have to give him tough electoral choice on 2012. This is my honest answer.
You said I missed the central argument, you mean the one by Mr. Old Cop?
P.S. How do you explain the fact that under the liberal Europe, abortion rate is lot lower there than in the US? And the fact that Latin America has high abortion rate, even with the bans?
October 1st, 2009 7:25 pm
To Mr. Old Cop:
Yes abortion is a termination of human life. Jimmy Carter(pro-life liberal!) said, Jesus would never support abortion. I want abortion to stop. But how? Are we going to send women to jail for performing abortion? Do we want them to die by doing illegal back-alley abortion? Don’t get me wrong. I SUPPORT BANNING ABORTION IN CASE OF RAPE OR INCEST but that’s not the only way to do this. Education , compassion, counselling, contraception, adoption, all these should be used as well. Most pro-choicers are not pro-abortion, they genuinely wants to reduce and perhaps make abortion never never necessary. But They belive they should go about it not by judging woman, but by working with them to make THE RIGHT CHOICE. You are right Christians ought to be pro-life. But they can also be pro-choice at the same time if they believe in doing their work through persuasion, not coercion(while I bleieve both coercion and persuasion is needed so I vigilently try to make the both groups see that they need each other).
Will you work with us, Borther Old Cop?We both want the same thing, right(protecting the un-born)? It’s just the question of methods.
P.S. I think Mr. Harmonicminer you said it’s wrong to legalize murder, any more than slavery. Amen, the ultimate goal should be official legal protection of all life from concept to natural death. But my argument is, we need to take this step by step. just as Lincoln wanted to gradually choke slavery to its natural death, we need to gradually make our society abhor and reject abortion.
October 1st, 2009 7:39 pm
“Obama’s appointees are pro-choice(Sebellius, Ogden, etc.”
Mr. Lee,
The whole point is they say they are pro-choice. The work for and support a regime that is pro-death. I don’t care what they say; their actions speak the truth. You did not answer my inquiry but that is okay. It is between the “progressives” and God.
Why do we use a positive word like “progressive” to describe a liberal, anti biblical movement? It’s like calling a Homosexual “gay” when there is nothing “gay” about the life style. Why don’t we call it the “Realitive” movement?
October 1st, 2009 7:40 pm
that was supposed to be “relative movement”
October 1st, 2009 7:45 pm
Mr. Lee,
I wrote my response before you answered my inquiry. I am reading it now. I know I am harsh, but I hate abortion of any kind. Hate it. It’s my feeling that, even in the case of rape or incest, the baby is not at fault. This young child is innocent and there are plenty of families crying for a child
October 1st, 2009 8:03 pm
I am sorry Mr. Lee, but the woman that has the abortion is responsible for her own actions. You and I both know that redemption is still possible, but she is responsible. Education is necessary but people are responsible to the LORD for their own decisions. Most abortions are for “birth control” only and although not an unpardonable sin, the women know abortion is wrong. This society attempts to mitigate the issue by defining incorrectly when life begins.
October 1st, 2009 9:03 pm
Jong Eun, the central argument of the post is at the beginning, before the comments began, in the post I quoted by Francis Beckwith. The single best analogy to abortion in the USA now is slavery in the 18th/19th centuries.
But it isn’t a very good one, in one way: legal slavery was as old as the human race, while legalized abortion in the USA is only 35-40 years old in most places (a couple of states were a bit earlier, though they had various limitations, mostly development time in the womb, etc.).
Abortion is not NEARLY as ingrained and embedded in our society as was slavery. But the longer we allow it to be legal, the more embedded it becomes.
One reason we haven’t had a Supreme Court that would overturn the miserably reasoned Roe v. Wade decision is because “progressive Christians” have voted for Democrats who believe in a “living constitution.”
I still hope you will deal directly with the arguments in Professor Beckwith’s statement above. Your comment about Lincoln didn’t really address the main point.
October 1st, 2009 9:07 pm
I’ll put it very simply. If I was a slave who wanted my freedom, I would much rather have had someone truly serious about ending slavery on my side, instead of a lot of “progressive Christians” who were somehow hoping to the change the minds of the slave owners, or the minds of the politicians who benefited from it.
October 1st, 2009 10:19 pm
Mr. Lee says: “Most pro-choicers are not pro-abortion, they genuinely want to reduce and perhaps make abortion never never necessary. But They believe they should go about it not by judging woman, but by working with them to make THE RIGHT CHOICE.”
Mr. Lee,
That is exactly the point Professor Beckwith was arguing against. And I quote “Reducing the number of these discretionary acts of killing simply by trying to pacify and/or accommodate the needs of those who want to procure or encourage abortions only reinforces the idea that the unborn are subhuman creatures whose value depends exclusively on someone else’s wanting them or deciding that they are worthy of being permitted to live.”
“Progressive” Christians are trying to help the situation by voting for the very people that caused the situation in the first place. That makes no sense and it is reprehensible!
October 2nd, 2009 10:25 am
Wow three to one. I feel overwhelmed in responding to all the challengse.
First of all I am pro-life. Evangelical Left and Right should not condemn each other but join together. I acknowledge all the labor, commitment, and prayers of the conservative pro-life people like you all. (And I first began responding to this post in hope that now YOU WILL ackowledge our labor and commitment).
I think Mr. Cop is suspicious that we progressives have betrayed pro-life cause by joining with Obama(Is that so?).
I carefully read Dr.Beckwith’s comment. He is right that ultimately pro-choice position still gives woman life or death power over unborn. Sadly this is exactly what majority of Americans believe. So how do you combat that(again tactical problem)? Conserv. say just change laws and force them to accept it(frontal assault). We say, let’s steadily make people more unfortable with the idea of terminating life and remove the social phenomenon that continues to drive woman to abortion(tactical manuevering). When mahority have this notion of I have a “freedom to…(abortion)” rather than bluntly saying “no you don’t!” it’s better to persuade them “do you really need that freedom?” and “do you really want to hurt innoncent (baby) for no reason?”
Not to be distracted, Dr. Begich is RIGHT. UNBORN HAVE “RIGHT” TO LIFE(AMEN!). Yet we on the Left think tactically, first we need to get people ashamed of even considering abortion through strategic measures(like, ‘do you really’ want to sadistically multilate poor babies through partial-birth abortion?). That way, people will feel bad and say something like all right, abortion should only allowed if there is…(they admit to some limtiations). Then you work on whether this exceptions are really needed(do you really need to do abortion just because of head ache?) Step by step, we chip away the abortion argument until we get to Dr. Begich’s premise…
“People don’t need to have life-death power over poor babies except for really critical situation like rape, incest, threat to life.”
I know this is a really “gradual process” but less divisive than all-or nothing conflict that you conservative pro-lifers advocate.
October 2nd, 2009 10:37 am
The simplest way I can characterize this: it is the progressive Left, including “Progressive Christians” who are their allies politically, who have gotten us TO the position our society is now in regarding abortion. Your prescription for the way out, assuming you are truly “pro-life,” seems to be to do MORE of the very thing that got us into the current state of affairs, by compromising politically with people who are hostile to the unborn.
You are wrong about your statement that “a majority of Americans believe” that women should have life or death power over the unborn at any time in the pregnancy for any reason, the current legal status, which would only be further enshrined by FOCA. You’re repeating leftist talking points on that… which leads me to believe you have not read books such as Beckwith’s “Defending Life” or “Embryo: A Defense of Human Life” by Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen.
You have still not responded to the essential point of Beckwith’s post: namely, would you have tried to end slavery by trying to talk the slave owners and politicians who benefited from slavery out of it? Or by changing the law and making it illegal, and doing whatever was necessary to bring that state of affairs about?
In your world, and using your assumptions about how to change society, there would STILL be slaves in the South, I think.
Of COURSE we should do all the other things to educate people, etc. But none of that justifies the support in political power of people whose implacable intent is exactly opposite what you claim to want.
October 2nd, 2009 10:50 am
after thought(once you get people to admit your freedom {in this case freedom to abortion} can be restricted, we can slowly make that freedom virtually unexerciseable by demanding that they justify their act…and you and I know abortion is very rarely justifiable)
Now I think Mr. Harmonicminer could say, “but Jong Eun your Obama still isn’t agreeing to restrictions on abortion!” True, for Obama. Progressives job is to make him accept the legitimacy of pro-life movement(so never again will we be mocked by the mainstrea media) and influence him to admit ‘woman ought to have help to carry pregnency to term(meaning life is better choice than death). If we can get Obama to A. pro-life people are after all, reasonable people B. Life is a better choice than Death. The playing field changes as pro-lifers can say “look media, Dems, etc. let us speak, obama says we are legit!” B. I thought you liberals were for the ‘greater good’ you ought to choose life over death.”
Mr. Harmonicer, I have something to confesss. Deep in my heart, I think Obama will not make the commitment to shut the door of death(abortion) permanently. Yet, if he can give resources to support pro-life cause, recognize pro-life movement as people worthy of respectful dialogue(we aren’t fringe fanatic), and admit abortion is controversial, and (like a good liberal) proclaim state’s duty to fight fo the “least among us” pro-lifers will gain a moral high ground. After that, we move on beyond Obama for the next battle.
October 2nd, 2009 10:52 am
p.s. hold on a minute Mr harmonicminer, i am writing my response to slavery as fast as possible1
October 2nd, 2009 11:00 am
Slavery.
I would have been a free-soiler. slavery should not expand to territories but exist only in the states where it already exists. Slave trade should be banned. After that, we need to again tactically make existing slavery very uneconomical and regulated. 1. We could have laws that say slaves can not work on Sunday, the day of rest. 2. children of slaves can not be sold away from their parents 3. slaves can be free if they fulfill this that, and that. 4. slave owner must proivde vaccination for slaves list. At some point regulations will be so much that, slave owner will say ‘enough of this! i am going to just free them and treat them like low-paid workers!!! When the slaver planations are virtually bankrupt and lost all economic incentive, we kindly offer remaining slaver owners compensation to “free their salves”.
October 2nd, 2009 11:03 am
Gradual legal strategy does work Mr. Harmonicminer.
It gradually corners one side all the way to full capitulation. (look how those shrewd ACLU and gay looby is pressing their interest in New England!) first they said we just want no discrimination, then we jsut want civil union, and then.. well we say their true inten all along, right? ughhh… 🙁
October 2nd, 2009 11:10 am
Sadly….. there would have been GENERATIONS more of slavery by your method.
And by supporting “progressive politicians”, regardless of whatever other agreement you may have with them, you and “progressive Christians” are guaranteeing more generations of higher numbers of murdered unborn. I wish it wasn’t so. I wish your strategy had any hope… but I see no evidence of it. What has worked, in a smaller way, is to elect anti-abortion politicians, who have, in some states, passed laws restricting abortion in minor ways, and saving some lives thereby. I think you cannot point to a SINGLE instance of “pro-choice” politicians making ANY accomodation of the sort you hope to see from Obama.
In other words, you are hoping for a thing that has never happened, and for which there is no evidence of possibility. The only “gradual” legal restrictions on abortion that have passed in the states (and which would be removed by FOCA) have come from strongly anti-abortion politicians, not “recently swayed progressive formerly pro-choice” politicians of the sort you hope Obama and his ilk to become.
I believe there is a word commonly applied to people who keep doing the same thing but hoping for different results.
October 2nd, 2009 11:26 am
Another way to ask my question: why do you support politicians who are fine with abortion, in hope of changing them? Why not support politicians who are strongly anti-abortion, and then try to change THEM to fit with your other beliefs? You will find MANY more Republicans who will support some of your environmental and social spending desires than Democrats who will vote for anything pro-life. And historically, despite all the Bush bashing propaganda, it has been equally likely for Democrats to pursue war as Republicans.
So why support the side that is implacably opposed to something central to you (if it is) for the sake of other issues, when the OTHER side offers at least SOME support for those other issues, and also agrees with you on that central point?
October 2nd, 2009 1:18 pm
“I think Mr. Cop is suspicious that we progressives have betrayed pro-life cause by joining with Obama(Is that so?).”
Mr. Lee,
I am not just suspicious, sir, I am OFFENDED.
I am even more conservative then most because I say, what good are all the freedoms and rights we so fortunately have in this country. What good are our efforts to feed the poor and protect the rights of people groups around the world, when we kill the innocent who will never even have a chance at the right, yes the RIGHT, to be born? I do not care what a politician stands for if they stand for killing the innocent. Nothing else matters.
I would presume God is not interested in our strategy, He wants it STOPPED. And I do agree with harmonicminer when he says “So why support the side that is implacably opposed to something central to you (if it is) for the sake of other issues, when the OTHER side offers at least SOME support for those other issues, and also agrees with you on that central point?”
October 2nd, 2009 9:35 pm
wow…intense…but you know Mr. Harmoniminer, you made me pause for a long time, “indeed what does being a pro-life progrssive means really for me?” (please be prepared, this is a long response)
Dear Mr. Harmonicminer(I will adress your question in the next post, Mr. Old Cop),
1st of all, whatever gains pro-life has made may not have been feasible has it not been for the support of the pro-life liberals and even pro-choicers. It was pro-life Dems who provided votes for Hyde Amendment, partial-birth abortion ban, unborn victims of violence act. Joe Biden and Tom Dashcle voted for the partial-birth ban in 2003, Specter(since he is in my party now) played pivotal role in nominating three of the “conservative” Supreme Court Justices. Even this week, three pro-choice Dems in the Senate Finance committe defied Baucus to renew $50 million abstinence only funding. Tim Kaine, pro-choice DNC Chair has pledged to enforce Virginia’s abortion regulations(one of the strictest in the nation) as a governor and he has kept his promise so far. Not only do pro-life Dems speak out, lot of pro-choice Dems have compromised when faced with popular regulations. So to assume Obama and pro-choice Dems are beyond negotiation is simply…. “politically incorrect.”
But I think you asked, a deeper, fundemental question, why am I a “pro-life progressive”?
Ultiamtely it is because I believe respect for human dignity is an integral part of the progressive philosophy. Progressives since FDR believe govt. has a moral mandate to promote social justice for all people, white, black, poor, middle class, women, hispanics, religious and non-religious, immigrants, etc. My challenge to fellow progressives is this, “If YOU TRULY BELEIVE GOVT HAS An answer for the social ills of this nation, why are you silent on another group of innocent victims, the un-born babies? For me being pro-life means using “govt.” as instrument to provide well-being for all people, “from concpetion to natural death”.
(please promise me you will keep this off-record), I did consider for a while.. may be I can be a pro-life Republican… but it doesn’t seem to fit in with my philosophy. Republican party fundmentally rejects the “role of a big govt”!! It disagrees with me on foreign policy, economic policy, social tolerance, gun control, and worse yet, has this notion that “ideal govt. is the one that is the smallest”(which is simply an anethma to my vision of big pro-life govt that influence every corner of the society.)
Put it simply, as a pro-life progressive, I can simply attach anti-abortion plank into one of the next govt’s big project to combat social evil(how can people who care so much about human rights not care about babies, I shame my fellow Dems). But conservatives… I will be fighting them on every single issue(use govt. to stop abortion! Use govt. to stop drugs! use govt. to stop poverty! use govt. to stop pollution! use govt. to stop coprpoate greed! use govt. to promote multicularlism! use govt provide health care…use govt. to….I would have to fundmentally transform the conservative philosopy! this is 10 times harder than transforming the progressives.
For me, pro-life politics is more than just anti-abortion(and it probably isn’t for you either). It encompass a just society which embrace liberty, equality, and fraternity for all through the empowerment of our elected govt. My bigest dilemmas is that Democrats keep refusing to see that state has a moral duty to protect the unborn babies, but should I now abandon my philosophy? Or should I put my efforts into curing my beloved Demcorats of their tragic(and sinful) folly?
Dear Mr. Harmonicminer, I know you are a conservative and I respect you for that. It’s more important to me that you are my brother in Christ and respect the sanctity of life. But Mr. Harmonminer, Evangelical Right and Left do have political disagreements. Should we let our disagreemnt be cause of distrust and judgement? or even though I know we both think other’s atrategies aren’t effective, still recognize our common cause and work together?
October 2nd, 2009 9:44 pm
Dear Mr. Old Cop,
I think I partly answered your question by my emotional response at the top. I understand you are offended by the wishy-washy pro-life progressives who make compromises. But can public policies really be decided in such absolute term? (well yes we could, but that would tear this nation).
I wholly agree that abortion must be stopped. As James Carville admitted, “Ideal number of abortion is falt zero.” But Mr. Old Cop forgive me for saying this, but seeing the scope of our challenge I just don’t think frontal asaault is the way to go. Didn’t Jesus say we should be wise as serpent and gentle as dove? step by step method takes patience, disappointments, but we on the left think this is the prudent strategy.
Mr. Old Cop please stay true to your pro-life conviction and fight for the unborn openly and boldy. We too will lead the fight but in a different manner. And one day when this fight is over, I pray, I pray that when Evangelical left and right can meet together in Christ, we can acknowledge that we needed each other to WIN THE WAR ON ABORTION.
Can you….trust me now, Mr. Old Cop?
October 2nd, 2009 10:08 pm
Jong Eun, I am convinced that you mean well. I simply think you are deluded, and do not know the history of the movements you approve of, nor the motivations underlying them. You laud FDR. I believe you really should consider reading “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg, and “The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression” by Amity Schlaes.
I believe you do not understand the politics of Democrats who vote “safely” for abortion control measures when it is clear that their vote isn’t going to affect the result one way or the other. (They do this with the full permission of party bosses, who understand that the vote will “look good” to a constituency back home, and not cost anything for the party’s agenda.)
The proof of this: find a “pro-choice” Senator who voted to confirm any recent conservative Supreme Court nominee, WHEN THE VOTE WAS GOING TO BE CLOSE. I think you can’t. And everyone knows that abortion is the single biggest issue on the agenda for Supreme Court nominees these days…
Finally, I think your priorities are simply backwards. It’s fine to care about “quality of life” issues for the poor, though we probably have strong disagreements over the proper *or* practical solutions. But that does not take priority over allowing the poor to be born in the first place. African-American babies are FIVE TIMES as likely to be aborted as whites. This was not true until it became legal. In the bloglinks at the side of this page, look for one called “LEARN” and click it. These are mostly African-Americans who have figured out that abortion is hurting their people FAR MORE than lack of social programs. What do you think you know that they don’t?
I note you never responded directly to this from my earlier comment:
All you did was make the observation that abortion has dropped, slightly, in recent years. But it is still VERY high, and the small change does not invalidate the larger point, namely that social programs, or the lack thereof, are largely irrelevant to abortion decisions, while legal status, as proved by history, is the hugely determining factor.
Regarding all the other social goals you have, I wonder if you actually know who your intellectual antecedents and fellow travelers are? Read Liberal Fascism, linked above.
I am aware that progressives, including “progressive Christians,” often mean well. I think some who take that pose are cynical manipulators of those who do mean well, however. And of those who mean well, which I believe to include you, the proportion of those who are in command of the facts and history of the ideas they espouse is pretty small. I hope you’ll read those two books I listed above, unless, of course, you’re already aware of the great similarities and mutual admiration between the FDR of 1934 and the Mussolini of that same year.
Particularly, any Christian should be very, very careful about choosing a different set of priorities than the historic church did for 1950 years.
October 3rd, 2009 12:56 pm
Dear Mr. Harmonicminer(I thought about waiting for Mr. Cop’s response but then thought it would be better to wrap up the discussion by clarifying how we differ on the issue of life, Obama, and politics in general). i will try to be as calm as possible.
As Christians, our first accountability is to God(and His Son) and live to his Word, preaching his gospel and being the light and salt of the world. I think we can both agree on this point.
But God is neither a conservative nor liberal for such political ideology are creation of man’s convenience. In addition, ever ideology and parties will have non-Christian even anti-Christian elements for we live in a sinful world where most do not fear the Lord.
But from there, you and I seem to move away from each other(as do the Evanglical left and right). We both affirm to be pro-life, and yet for me the answer to abortion, poverty, war is through big,demcoratic, just govt. I have ineed been introduced to “Liberal fascism” and I saw the fascists had good liberal policiies, but of course they ultimately misused the big govt. for wrong purpose(why? well lack of democratic restrain for an instance, disrepect for social minoirites for another. lack of fear of God’s judgment probably biggest). Indeed, FDR was fascinated with socialism and fascism in the 30’s but he made the right choice of being a reformer, not revolutionary.
I don’t think you are a knee-jerk Republican, and nor would you say all people inside the conservative moment all fear the Lord or even have the people’s best interest at heart. Yet based on your observation and studies you have come to different conclusion from us(reading your other articles) that free market, and prioritiziation on the “traditonal” moral values(abortion and such) is the right direction for this nation. It is a conclusion wothy of merit, but not my conclusion.
Are there maany liberals who are not Christians or even moral? Yes. have they made mistakes? Yes. many liberals have viewed abortion as woman’s empowerment and couldn’t care less that abortion increased in the 70’s in fact, some praised it as population control. Our “progressive social policy” of 70’s which you mock, was not anto-abortion, but in fact to a degree it was pro-abortion, urging women to feel ashamed of being a mother and wife. With such mentality being promoted in culture, legalized abortion on demand ineviatbly rose, until people realized that abortion was not the answer, but infact anethma to our society and women(and babies).
Does this mean progressivism is less valid than conservatism? hardly. Books after books will be written on the shortcoming of conservativ policies and hypocricies of many so-called moral conservatives. Before God, conservative or progressive, who is truly guiltless? aren’t we all sinners? Yet most of my friends(I was raised in a Christian high school), you, Mr. Old Cop, Dr. James Dobson, George Bush, and millions of evangelical Americans have chosen to still live out God’s commendments through certain application of modern-day political conservatism, not because you think it and the GOP is all ways correct, but because you have felt you can best live out the divine call through this approach. We on the Left have taken our path, once again, not because we always like our liberal collegagues or approve thier conduct(don’t you think I know that John Dewey was a liberal humanist? That JFK was an adulterer? That ACLU scoffe at the power of faith in society? that many liberal christians have denied the divinity of Jesus? that Margaret Sanger was Eugnist and the 60’s left movement was traumatized by drugs, violence sexual immorality? That poor Jimmy Carter was an incompetent president?) because we too have come to a conclusion that we can best fulfill the Lord’s calling through using the tools and visions of progressivism. Just as you have likely felt frsutation with the hypocricy of many in the Right, we too have trembled with anger at the secular(manipulative) fundementalists among us who believe in the onmipotence of human reason. Yet, just as I acknowledge the valor of many Conservative Christians who stood out for Faith, Family, and Flag all these years against media’s mockery, please do not forget the praying saints within the Left movement, who face so much temptation to capitulate but neve gve up to Call to the His Witness and Light, first to our unbelieveing liberal colelagues, but second to the people of the wolrd who need His Justice and compassion.
So….where does this leave us? Dear. Mr. Harmoniminer, it’s understandable we both think our apporach is better. I too was tempted to accuse you of being “deluded” but didn’t because I respected your search for truth, and wisdom(even if i think you are still wrong). It is true that our priorities differ, but never forget that Historic Churche’s no.1 prioirty was never, cut taxes! or establish universal health care! or world peace3! But rather to bring people to Christ for salvation(which is way of way my top priority is alligned to that of the ‘historic’ church you mention).
Dear Mr. Harmonicminer, I aplogize that simple debate on “abortion strategy” has turned into philosophical discussion on the two wings of Evangelicalism. Of course our disagreemnt on abortion remains unchanged as I still stupport social programs as essential to reduceing abortion(as my native country’s abortion ban has failed in enforcement due to absence of pro-life cultural foundation), I also believe many pro-choice liberals can steadily be brought to line with public pressure and logial persuasion or at least accept the importance of their pro-life coleagues(which is why the Demcorats continuously now look for pro-life recruits for elections). Yet, at the end, division is between us that, we on the left seek to fulfill our overall vision through Obama and the Democratic Party(and of course I don’t view my priorirty backward either)while you feel it’s useless since it has little to offer you philosophically.
All this I think go back to the very reason why I wrote to you in the first place. The evangelical Left and Right will continue to debate and even criticize each other(just like you called my priority “backward” and I vehmently denied it). Yet, two sides should never villify each other. Like the two wings of an angel, the two mighty hands of God,your group and my group both serve the Lord in different capacity and yet paradoxically, WE NEED EACH OTHER. We need you to continue for an instance to draft more regulations on abortion, while you need us to show that abortion is not a partisan issue but rather a fundmental human rights issue that goes beyond just pregnency. And therefore, so long as we stay true to our task, I DO NOT THINK WE ON THE LEFT OWE OUR BROTHERS ON THE RIGHT ANY APOLOGY OR REPENTENCE for supporting the Democratic president. Natrually we should learn from each other(I affirmed your view repeatedly that I support legal bans on abortion as the ultiamte solution) but paraphrasing one of our spookesperson Rev. Jim Wallis, “Let us now end the monopoly of one political ideology over our faith and let the discussion/debate begin.”
Do you accept us on the Left as your worthy Christian brothers/debators? As I accept you?
October 3rd, 2009 1:07 pm
Oh about the surprme court nomination. Well, Mr. Harmoniminer, we on the left do believe Constitution is a living document. While we opposse roe v. wade we are also deeply suspicious of constuctionist like Scalia, Thomas, Alito(this will be yet another bigg debate).
But about the voting procedure, 18 Dems voted to end the filibuster on Alito, even though Sen. Kerry was calling from Stizerland to stop him. Many of them were pro-choice and knew, once filibuster is over Alito on In. Yes, GOP threathened us with nuclear option, but had Alito been anything like Robert Bork, I think it’s likely that we Dems would have attacked him with every thing we have.
October 3rd, 2009 1:16 pm
P.S. one time when we Dems could have really defeated pro-life justice but let him go.
Clarence Thomas. 52-48. 5,6 pro-choice Demcorats(not pro-life, really pro-choice) voted for his confirmation much to the protest of the angry feminsit groups.
October 3rd, 2009 2:29 pm
Mr. Lee,
We do not agree on tactics; Neither do we agree as to politics. I am not sure we agree on what a Christian is either. I am seem to be a very polite and gracious person and I appreciate your part in this discussion.
As a political and Christian Conservative, I don’t have a political party any longer. Those of my ilk are not represented by either party at this point.
October 3rd, 2009 2:31 pm
EDIT: This is how the last post should have read. I don’t know what happen 🙂
Mr. Lee,
We do not agree on tactics; Neither do we agree as to politics. I am not sure we agree on what a Christian is either. You seem to be a very polite and gracious person and I appreciate your part in this discussion.
As a political and Christian Conservative, I don’t have a political party any longer. Those of my ilk are not represented by either party at this point.
October 3rd, 2009 6:12 pm
Jong Eun, you said:
True. But some will have much more than others. There is not a moral equivalence or equal amounts of anti-Christian elements between the two main US political parties. Statements that “every party has weaknesses” blur the amount of weakness in each, and the difference between them.
Of course not. That’s because the entire concept of a modern state with social welfare programs descends not from church teaching but from Marxism.
There is simply no evidence of this. Don’t be fooled by the ways politicians posture before certain audiences. It is the way they vote WHEN THEIR VOTE MATTERS that shows their true allegiance.
In the Clarence Thomas vote, those Dems who voted for him despite feminist protest were afraid of the backlash from civil rights groups and blacks in general. Not that the backlash would have been huge… because the Left dominates those groups. But politicians calculate their votes on the margins…. a few percent, in a close district, is all it takes.
None of this really matters in the end, though.
I suggest that, if you really do know that liberal Christian thought descends from Marxist/Socialist/Fascist thought, if you really do buy that and own it (which you should, because it’s true), that you take out an ad in the newspaper and advertise it.
In the meantime, I point out this: your entire peace-pretending enterprise is financed by coerced theft of money from people who work for it, to give it to people who don’t. The entire concept of a nation state with the power to take money from one social group and give it to another has NO origin in scripture, but is instead a Marxist conception. To the extent that the USA does this, it gets farther and farther from any scriptural concept, and closer and closer to Marxism. On the ideological front, do you actually see Jesus campaigning for laws that allow law enforcement officials to arrest and imprison people who don’t want to pay, in order to allow government to give that money to someone else?
The very, very odd thing, to me: the Christian Left pretends to be for peace, but it promotes by its political associations a far, far more coercive government than does the Right. No one in ancient times ever considered that government would steal from some to give to others, in a bizarre form of legalized Robin Hood ethics. It was understood that governments would steal, and that people had little choice but to comply. It was never contemplated that governments would steal out of some high moral pretense to be doing good by means of theft.
Beyond the ideological aspect, however, is this: socialism has been tried, over and over, since Bismarck in Germany in the 19th century. It has never worked. It has always made people poorer in the long term, on average, and it has always gone bankrupt. It doesn’t work. It can’t, because it deludes itself about human nature and how incentives work, and it deludes itself that ANYONE, no matter how well intentioned, can be trusted with the power to steal from some to give it to others. We have transferred about 7 trillion dollars since the Great Society programs of the mid 1960s, from “rich” to “poor.” The percentage of poor is the same, statistically. And other social pathologies are FAR worse, sometimes literally by orders of magnitude.
I know the Christian Left means well in many instances… but it is hopelessly lost if it sees permission for Robin Hood ethics in the Bible, and its willful blindness to the facts of history is simply very, very sad.
So, Jong Eun, I certainly do accept you as a Christian who is doing the best possible by your understanding… it is your understanding that I question, deeply.
Does it really make sense to you that economic and social theories devised by specifically anti-Christian atheists are the ones that will somehow fit best with the Christian understanding of life and personal responsibility?
This entire discussion has reminded me that I need to finish another post in a series I’ve been working on, “The Spiritual Poverty of Socialism.”
Question of curiosity: did you actually READ “Liberal Fascism”? Or did you just read about it in a review by some left-leaning person or other?
I think if you read the book itself, you will see that the connections between the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century and American Leftism/Liberalism are very, very deep, not merely coincidental, the main difference being that the US version is not as violent. That doesn’t mean it is NON-violent… it just hasn’t started gassing dissenters yet, though it has certainly imprisoned them in the tens of thousands. If you haven’t read the book, I guarantee many eye opening facts you haven’t learned elsewhere.
October 3rd, 2009 7:06 pm
Jong Eun, I discussed material relevant to your points about your apparent comfort with borrowing many ideas from the secular Left here. Rather than just link to it, I’ve reproduced some of it here… though there is more at the link.
October 3rd, 2009 9:15 pm
I just want to say, Jong Eun, I’m glad to see my old classmate and friendly rival here. Watching you debate my professor and mentor, Mr. Harmonicminer, has been fascinating– the meeting of two minds that I greatly respect. You both know how to present your side clearly without resorting to ad hominem and other ignoble tactics, and you are both very well-informed about your positions. Thanks for joining us!
October 3rd, 2009 9:46 pm
“…ad hominem and other ignoble tactics.”?????
Gee, to put it in a contemporary colloquialism, I think that I’ve just been “dised” :). Or shall I say, someone has used haughty and self-aggrandizing tactics to show disrespect toward me. I could be mistaken, but; Alas, I think not. 🙂
October 3rd, 2009 9:56 pm
Jong Eun, I also really appreciate your effort to emphasize the common ground between us and to unify with us in the effort against abortion. I think that one of the main values that Paul expressed for the church was unity, and I agree with Old Cop that our solidarity as Christians is more important than our political affiliation. I also agree with Mr. Harmonicminer that abortion is one of the most important leftist practices that we should fight against. So, it would follow that we should be willing to set aside other issues that divide us in order to get this thing done– stopping abortion. In other words, it would be more productive to stop trying to convince Jong Eun to be a Republican and focus on responding to his suggestions about tactics.
Jong Eun, your response to Harmonicminer’s statement about gradual change only gave an example of slipping leftward. You said,
“Gradual legal strategy does work Mr. Harmonicminer. It gradually corners one side all the way to full capitulation. (look how those shrewd ACLU and gay looby is pressing their interest in New England!) first they said we just want no discrimination, then we just want civil union, and then.. well we say their true inten all along, right?”
Can you give an example of a situation in which Democrats have worked from within their own party against their own party on a certain issue and were effective at accomplishing their goal? If so, can you give two? Three?
It seems to me like in general, the “slippery slide” of politics only works in the direction toward NEW ideas (abortion, feminism, gay marriage, Communism, Fascism, etc.). However, in order to stop a new idea, it seems like you have to either destroy it or repress it, and repressing doesn’t work for very long. Fascism and Communism were both started by persuasion– Hitler and Lenin both won their people’s hearts before they ever went on the war trail. However, it took WWII to bring down Fascism, though, not just some negotiations with the bad boys. Same thing with slavery– there was no way that Lincoln could convince the South to just be OK with stopping slavery; he just declared emancipation and enforced it, even at the cost of partially causing a civil war.
October 3rd, 2009 10:04 pm
Mr. Old Cop, I apologize, I was not directing my comment about ad hominem to you; you haven’t done it. I didn’t mention you because my original intent in directing Jong Eun to this blog was for him to debate Dr. Shackleton, but I’m glad that you’ve joined the discussion!
October 3rd, 2009 10:05 pm
Sorry, I meant Harmonicminer, not Dr. Shackleton.
October 3rd, 2009 10:18 pm
Well Professor,
I bid you good night. If I had known I was appealing to people’s emotions and prejudices instead of their ability to think or that my tactics were dishonorable and contrary to the high standards of conduct expected of somebody, I would have certainly not entered into the fray, as it were.
In the future, I will endeavor to be less emotional and disrespectful in the discussion of a matter which entails very little emotion. I realize now that the SENSELESS KILLING OF CHILDREN should be handled with the utmost coolness and honor. And that I should not hold the present Marxist regime and prior left wing lunatic regimes responsible for their conduct.
Obviously my dear professor I am being disingenuous as I have no intention changing my ignoble or ad-hominem tactics.
See you tomorrow.
October 3rd, 2009 10:20 pm
Okay Katherine, truce. I was having a little fun at you expense and I apologize and that is not disingenuous :).
October 3rd, 2009 11:08 pm
Mr. Old Cop, the correct spelling is “dissed.” That’s because it comes from the ancient Hebrew word “dissohnia” which means, roughly (go with me here, some words don’t translate well between languages), “without ownership.” Most scholars believe it is the root word for the modern verb, “to disown.” But I digress. Or maybe disgress.
The main point is that in modern socialist thought, no one really owns anything except the government (which occasionally deigns to give something back to us, and calls it a “refund,” as if someone is getting some fun back). So the suffix of the word “dissohnia” has been dropped in contemporary usage. That’s how the word got shortened to “diss” (the second “s” being retained to aid proper pronunciation), which simply means “without.”
That’s what makes “diss” (meaning “without”) the perfect word for conversation about socialism, since indeed, in socialist economies, most people eventually ARE without… without opportunity, without redress, without options, without hope, and without lunch, let alone cancer treatment or a heart transplant.
The common phrase “I’m gonna disownya, baby,” can now be understood as a transliteration into colloquial English that retains both the original meaning and original pronunciation of “dissohnia.”
So if you’re feeling dissed by the feds, don’t sweat it. So do the rest of us. And if some sectors of society continue in their current trends, and the government continues to encourage them to do so, we’ll soon be without a next generation, too….
Call it the ultimate DISS.
October 4th, 2009 4:14 pm
Katherine~!
I was wondering when you would visit your professor’s blog. Thank you for introducing me to your mentor, even though….I think (tragically) that more we discuss, more we find that we disagree.
Thank you for explaining to Mr. Harmonimner and Mr. Old Cop(is he your friend too?) that trying to turn me into a republican/conservative isn’t very liklely to work(You know well my passion for progressive philsophy).
Thank you accepting the solidariy of Christians REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION. And yes, we need to join forces together to combat abortion, using all the tactics we have(you are not as hardline as I thought, lol just kidding). 🙂
Katherine, believe it or not, Democratic Party was once a conservative, pro-state’s right, pro-segregation party. It gradually changed thanks to the tireless efforts of its more liberal members. Or if you perfer a rightward example, gun control is an issue where the moderate wing of the Democratic party has gained grounds(did you know Howard Dean got A rating from Natl. Rifle associaiton?).
Sometimes old ideas can emerge, and they can be powerful. We on the left congrautlated ourselves that Kenseyian economic was indomitable, only to see Milton Friedman leading the reemergence of free-market economics! you will be surprised Katherine, but many of my pro-choice colleagues are worried, even cofnused that pro-life(or anti-choice they call it) still stays strong, and gains support from young people!! We on the left are in fact, very very worried about the persuasive power of the RIGHT!(Rush Limbaugh!! Glenn Beck! Dr. Dobson!)
Mr. Old Cop, thank you for your response. Thank you for calling me gracious..even though I must confess I am little hurt that you seem to not still wholly trust me and my group’s Christian faith. Your passion for unborn I deeply appreciate(and I think so would Jesus), and though our “tactics” one day, in heaven, I hope you would realize that we complement each other.
Hang on Mr. Harmonicminer, I have to think HARD about your LONG ANSWER.
October 4th, 2009 5:07 pm
Dear Mr. Harmonicminer,
I thought I sent you a long response, but yours is even longer.
First of all, thank you believing in me, and in my faith and passion to do what is right and moral! :-).
However, if the discussion turns into which of our political philosophy is more correct, than this debate will be endless(as it touches upon the very core of the existance of our two competing groups)!!
Mr. Harmonicminer, you say we on the left adopted anti-Christian viewpoints. Yet, you too say anti-Christians can come up with great ideas(Yes, I have great respect for Karl Marx, who spoke against the evils of capialism). Of course, Karl Marx was limited in his understanding of the Truth, because he rejected divine authority, and so his “billiant doctrine of communism” should be understood in light of scripture(like, there won’t be uptopia because people are sinful). But I believe, God had given Marx certain wisdom to analyze the workings of class struggle(if only he was a Christian!!). (Karl Marx, yet another topic we disagree upon).
Sure Mr. Harmonicminer, some ideas out there will oppose Christianity, (Holocust?). We don’t mindlessly adopt what is the new “hot idea out there”. But we seek to purify, and Biblizalize the ideas of man. Christian environmentalism(environmentalism with Biblical concept), Christian socialism(socialism with Biblical concept), Christian capitlism(capitalism with Biblibcal cocnept), Chrisitan internationalism,(international with Biblical concept) list goes on, simply because each of us have incorporated different versions of philosophy.
for an instance, in my view Katherine Harris is a Chrisian Capitalist, with Americanistic libertarian/individualism(right Katerine?).
Christian philosophy will inevitably be diverse(so long as we do not question the dinviity of Christ), which is why we have the Christian Right and Left(and some in the center).
So I am not too worried about our philosophical difference. And this discussion on socialism…that’s another long debate since it’s clear you don’t like socialism and I do, so on nearly every policy, you and I will be reaching different conclusion(like for an instance,what’s wrong with rich people helping poor people and govt. urging them on with taxes if they don’t do it volunarily?You think it’s stealing, I think it’s justice, so our interpreation differs).
I will read “liberal fascism” again more careflly as you suggested as see what useful ideas I can learn from fascism(with Biblically based prudence, of course. I wouldn’t start advocating concentration camps i promise you).
i too would like to suggest you if you have not to read, book written by great Christian progressives, such as tony Campolo and Rev. Jim Wallis. They will articulate well that Evangelical progressivism is well grounded on Christian tradition.
Our difference….well we have differences, I understand. After decades of debates, lifetime of debate, our side and your side will still differ. I don’t think we have the power to changed that, only Jesus can when he returns. So what should we do? Call each other heretics and engage in inter-church conflict, breaking the heart of Jesus? No we both know that’s wrong. So how about we(listening to my freind Katherine), ackowledge that we have reached different, but understandable different conclusion, still have debates on the effectiveness of our policies and grow stronger together in our Lord Jesus christ and his church(or as Rev. Wallis always says, Don’t go left, Don’t go right, Go deeper!).
So in that logic, it’s all right for me to support Obama, my candidate for change and it’s all right for you to support Mccain/Palin, you canddiate for change. Right? Fair and balanced, respect and charity for all well-intentioned Chrisitans!(and you know what? If PresidentObama doesn’t do a good job, then we can always vote him out in 2012)