| Posted 09/25/08 at 02:51 PM||Reply with quote #1 |
If one thing is clear about human nature, no one is perfect. If another thing is clear, this is true of politicians. When people are extremists of any sort, you can be sure that epistemic myopia is involved. As Aristotle would say, and pretty much anyone with common sense, take a position in the middle. As this relates to politics, this would mean choosing the candidate who provides the most for your buck given he is not with you 100%. Christians are quick to side with Republicans because of the pro-life and anti-gay rights issues. But are there other issues out there like health care, poverty, education, unemployment (which many do not know much about). Also, are there other issues that democrats understand better? While Obama is pro-choice, he does desire a reduction in abortions. Moreover, Obama does plan to address other issues like health care, the economy, unemployment, poverty and the Iraq War. Actually both sides do, but the issue is who understands these issues better.
| Posted 09/27/08 at 02:48 AM||Reply with quote #2 |
As Aristotle would say, and pretty much anyone with common sense, take a position in the middle
What middle position is there on killing a baby in the womb? The "middle" is only an illusion created by people who don't want to publicly commit. And portraying normalcy as extreme is only a tactic to try and isolate.
are there other issues that democrats understand better?
The only issue democrats (liberals) understand better is how to lie without blinking.
Christians are quick to side with Republicans because of the pro-life and anti-gay rights issues. But are there other issues out there like health care, poverty, education, unemployment
Babies that are killed by abortion and partial-birth abortion don't have much of a chance to worry about those things. So you might say the right to life is sort of a "critical" issue that the others pale beside.
| Posted 09/30/08 at 07:06 PM||Reply with quote #3 |
You should exercise a bit of caution with the language you use. For one, I am a democrat and based on what you wrote, I am good at lying. That troubles me. The last time I checked, I enjoyed walking in the light of Christ. Secondly, you speak in extremes. You would do well to reread my reference to Aristotle. Extremes are dangerous. I can't think of a time when a politician said everything I wanted him/her to say for Christians. Your logic is that if a person is not pro-life, then he/she is evil or at least does not support any Christian values.
| Posted 09/30/08 at 07:28 PM||Reply with quote #4 |
|I couldn't disagree with you more. If you are a Christian then I think you would do well to re-evaluate your support of the Democrat party.
We are built for extremes, not middle ground. One wife. One husband. That's extreme! When you say I will commit myself to this person for the rest of my life and none of the other billion options. Following Jesus versus all the other options is also extreme. Choosing to follow God that was killed as a criminal, and that we haven't ever seen in person is a might extreme also! Saying that there is only 1 way to have life, 1 way to heaven, 1 way to be saved from our dying bodies - seems pretty extreme to me. Also it seems right.
As for abortion, if a Christian supports abortion the only thing I can think is that they are wrong! It doesn't mean they don't love the Lord, but they are wrong on one of the biggest problems in the world today. When I first became a Christian it didn't seem wrong to me, and it seems amazing to me now that it didn't. I even used to go out of my way to argue and curse Christians, before being one myself, who were protesting abortion. Then one day I followed through thinking about what it was really all about and asked myself why I had been so "pro-choice" before. The answers flipped me around 180. There's not one thing that's ok with killing unborn children.
| Posted 09/30/08 at 11:55 PM||Reply with quote #5 |
The fact that you began your reply with "I could not disagree with you more" tells me that it is not in my best interest to continue this exchange. I am not pleased with the spirit of your post. For one, nothing in your last post acknowledged the misuse of words when you implied that I am good at lying. It seems what is more important to you is winning an argument than reconciling with a brother. This makes me sad. Nevertheless, I am pro-life. Ten years back, I did volunteer work for a crisis pregnancy center. Over the years I even lectured in my classes in defense of the pro-life position at the universities I have taught at. Your reference to extremes is a turn off because it misses the point. As a Christian we are called to be radical and extreme but with love, not conceit. Moreover, it is the grace of God that allows us to do so. Being married to one wife is not an extreme. Plenty of non-Christians are. This is not that difficult to do. Being radical and extreme in the "correct" way is following Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The way you use the word extreme is consistent with the lifestyle of the Pharisees of Jesus time. These men were extreme but not for the Lord. They were extreme for themselves. Again be careful with how you use words. Never did I say Obama was correct about abortion. However, he has a plan to reduce abortions that even liberals will listen to. We need to build bridges, not burn them. Jesus did not burn bridges.
| Posted 10/01/08 at 12:49 PM||Reply with quote #6 |
Being married to one wife is not an extreme. Plenty of non-Christians are. This is not that difficult to do.
I don't believe that being abstinent until marriage, and marriage to death, is the norm.
I think you might be confusing passion as a negative thing. Not agreeing with you doesn't make me a Pharisee, as you imply.
I'm not interested in building bridges over abortion - nor should you be. I am interested in winning and having abortions made illegal - for a start. Jesus healed children, not killed.
Obama does not have a 'plan' to reduce abortions. He has a plan to prevent anyone from taking away the ability to perform abortions legally. Anything else is just election fluff. Here's some things to look at:
*NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC endorses Sen. Barack Obama for President!
NARAL Obama record
2007: 100 percent
2006: 100 percent
2005: 100 percent
*Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.
"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.
When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act … floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”
But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”
The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.
Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.
In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”
“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.
At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”
Obama is even more out of whack than NARAL.
| Posted 10/01/08 at 05:40 PM||Reply with quote #7 |
You either did not respond to much of what was in my last post or you don't understand what I was saying. Either way, there is a tone in all your posts that disturbs me. As Christians we are about building bridges; this does not mean compromise. We don't want to live in a Christian bubble. Being extreme is not in itself a good thing. Look at the KKK and Hitler. Obviously you missed this point. Just because something is not the norm does not entail it is an extreme. Again, be careful with words. Also, reread my reply; I did not imply you were a Pharisee. I said your view is not incompatible with this lifestyle or allows it. This also escaped your notice. My advice is that you listen to someone who has a different view instead of reacting to it. I noted clear epistemic myopia in your post. The Scriptures teach us to love without compromise. I don't know if the content and tone of your post is because you are a new Christian or what, but I have concluded that this exchange is not fruitful to continue.
| Posted 10/10/08 at 10:45 AM||Reply with quote #8 |
|I am voting for Obama. I think he's much better prepared to deal with the economic, healthcare, environment, and education issues than McCain. He is level headed, and that is a better asset to have when dealing with Irag, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. McCain will probably send thousands more soldiers to their deaths.
I get the impression from reading some posts in this thread that Republicans want to make "Christianity" the state sponsored religion. So which denomination will it be? Who gets to decide what is legal or illegal? - that answer should be obvious. We elect our representatives, so its our responsibility.
So what about abortion? Where does the rights of the mother end and the fetus begin? Who decides that? When does life begin?How do you know? There is room for interpretation here. Does life begin at fertiliztion? Or at implantation? How many cells do you need to have before you are considered a person? A fetus is dependent on the maternal blood supply for most of its development, so does that make it a parasite or a dependent? When does the heart start beating? When does the fetus start thinking? When can the fetus survive outside the womb?
The president can pick Supreme Court Justices, and veto bills. But Bush has already picked John Roberts and Sam Allito, but thats beside the point because Congress has to approve his choices. Congress can also override a presidential veto if they have enough support.
Conclusion- if you dont like the way things are, find a way to build support and elect the representatives who will have your interests in mind.
| Posted 10/10/08 at 11:50 AM||Reply with quote #9 |
|Well I wouldnt be able to vote since I am 17 and live in germany but I think I would vote for McCain if I could, not because Obama is black, or only because of the abortion issue or the issue of gay marriage (I think Obama and McCain both want civil unions which I consider a good idea). |
But thats not why I am posting here.
I think allowing abortions but wanting to reduce the number of abortions is still pretty extreme.
And consider that Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
The debate between Obama and Keyes on christianity (its somewhere on YouTube) does not show him in a good light.
And I think "McCain will probably send thousands more soldiers to their deaths." is a misrepresentation (like many other things I have seen in the US-media). McCain was against Bush's tactic from the beginning. McCain's efforts stabilized Iraq. Thats why most american soldiers vote McCain.
Iraq is a better place now than most people would imagine.
| Posted 10/10/08 at 01:36 PM||Reply with quote #10 |
|Here is Obamas refutation of that claim:
Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say --that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants. So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois medical society, so Illinois doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond. It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong. And that's what's been happening.
| Posted 10/10/08 at 02:58 PM||Reply with quote #11 |
|Allow me to remember you that all I stated was this:|
And consider that Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act."
What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.
Obama once (in front of something with "Planned Parenthood" all over it) stated something like: "This is not about if a woman can or cant have an abortion, this is about how we can lead our lives"
I think Obama should fight against Roe vs. Wade. I mentioned the debate between him and Alan Keyes and I think when Keyes stated "Christ would not vote for Obama" he is right.
I am basically repeating what I stated before. It just wasnt adressed in your response.
| Posted 10/12/08 at 12:35 AM||Reply with quote #12 |
I am a bit confused. You said you would vote for McCain, but you did not provide any clear reasons why. You said he would do a better job with social issues like health care; but what does this mean? As for Obama, you said you are against him not because he is black and pro-choice, yet everything you said negatively about him concerned the abortion issue. Am I missing something?
| Posted 10/12/08 at 04:50 AM||Reply with quote #13 |
Originally Posted by bwalker
As for Obama, you said you are against him not because he is black and pro-choice, yet everything you said negatively about him concerned the abortion issue. Am I missing something?
This is simply a misunderstanding. I said "or only because of the abortion issue". It is true that I did not elaborate my opinion on health care etc., but only because his position on abortian was already the topic here. I wanted to elaborate my thought that his position is still extreme.
You also missed that I criticized him for criticizing McCain on Iraq.
| Posted 10/14/08 at 02:04 PM||Reply with quote #14 |
I would like to submit a perspective and see what everyone else's thoughts are. Greg Koukl, in his weekly radio show Stand to Reason addressed the question, "Does God Take Sides?" when it comes to politics. His answer was to the affirmative. Basically he says that the Christian's responsibility in these matters is to discern which candidate has the morally supreme position. Because the candidate who supports the morally superior position is advocating a view that is more consistent with God's moral nature, he or she is more "on God's side." Therefore, by default, God is going to be more favorable towards that particular candidate...or in other words, God is more on his/her side because he or she is more on His
| Posted 10/16/08 at 01:58 AM||Reply with quote #15 |
| Greg Koukl's point is well taken. Nevertheless, his argument is too limited in terms of it's logical scope and tends to face off in an ad hoc surrounding. For while it remains true that on the basis of a particular case and point (in this case abortion) one candidate may adhere with the ethical standard of life, it does not follow that the same candidate then necessarily manifests an affinity towards every other ethical code respective of his character (i.e., compassion, reason, respect, humility, consideration for freedom, love etc) For in any given scenario it may possible that while the candidate supports one shade of the ethical spectrum, that he may disavow as series of other shades. So that, when candidate A is faced with scenario B he upholds a Christianized response, but in scenarios C and D he upholds a much more secularized response. The genetic fallacy is auspiciously avoided; such that one moral value is not confusedly thought to impute a wholistic array of moral values on an individual's character. In order for Kohl's reasoning to strike adamantly, he must revise his argument to state that the candidate who supports the morally superior position [in almost every area of his lifestyle] is advocating a view that is more consistent with God's moral nature, he or she is more "on God's side." Only then can khol's argument begin to account for realistic circumstances. |